Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non- commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at http : / /books . qooqle . com/

y Google

r i

i

r

y Google

y Google

y Google

n

THE

QUESTION -BOX
ANSWERS.

REPLIES TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED ON
MISSIONS TO NON-CATHOLICS.

REV. BERTRAND L. CONWAY,

OF THE PAULIST FATHERS.

THE CATHOLIC BOOK EXCHANGE,
1 20 West 60th Street,
New York. -

1903 :

Digitized by

fUbtl obatat :

•ffmptimatur

KEMIOUIS MfORT. S.TX

THE NEW YmMDepuiatus.

HJBL1C library!
•>58846

AST OR, l£NOX A NO

TU-DCN ^J^Pf^d M. FARLEY,

February, igoj.

Archiep. Neo Ebor,

Copyright, 1903, by "The Missionary Society of
St. Paul the Apostle in the State
of New York.m

Printed at tmb- Columbus Press, 120 West 6oth St.

Digitized by Google

PREFACE.

The Apostolate to the Non- Catholics of
our country, so dear to the heart of Father
Hecker, has proved itself a movement
blessed by God in the thousands of con-
verts it has won to the true Church. With-
in the past ten years it has been success-
fully inaugurated by the regular and secu-
lar clergy in over sixty dioceses of the
United States, and its future is' assured be-
cause of the special commendation of Pope
Leo XIII. and the American Hierarchy.

Although no man can blind himself to the
fact that we are living in a period of wide-
spread indifferentism and unbelief, still the
hearty welcome given to the Paulist Fathers
everywhere in the missions to non- Catho-
lics goes to evidence the intense longing
of thousands of earnest souls for the truth
of God. The many outside the fold are
like travellers lost in a forest at night, per-
plexed, worried, anxious, on the alert for a

Digitized by

iv

Preface.

divine guide to lead them out of the labyrinth
of their doubting. What better field for the
Church than in this our beloved country,
where the multitudes require but the kindly
presentation of the Church's claims, and the
heartful prayers of the Catholic people, to
answer God's call to believe ?

The Question Box is the most interesting
feature of these missions to non- Catholics.
At the door of the church a box is placed,
and into it non-Catholics are cordially in-
vited to deposit their difficulties and objec-
tions. These are answered the following
evening. In this way the lecturer learns the
mental troubles of his particular audience,
and his fair, kindly answering interests the
most listless and disarms the most prejudiced.
The Agnostic finds his doubts vanish ; the
Protestant his prejudices disappear; and the
Catholic his faith strengthened. Frequently
the unlearning of one lie, or the answering
of one difficulty, removes the veil that hid
the beauty of the Church from some good
soul, and he becomes "obedient to the
heavenly vision."

Digitized by

Preface.

v

This book answers in a brief and popular
manner the most important questions actually
received by the author during the past five
years of missionary activity in all parts of
the United States from Boston to Denver.
Its object is to interest fair-minded inquirers
in the further study of the Church's claims,
by removing many of their false notions re-
garding her. We hope that many of the
clean of heart approaching this study in the
humble, docile spirit of the child, and asking
not " How can these things be ? " but simply
" Has God revealed these truths ? " will find
their prayer for light answered by the Holy
Spirit of Truth. May He guide them back
to the fold of the one True Shepherd !

Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul,
Baltimore.

Digitized by

J

Digitized by

THE QUESTION BOX.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

How do you prove to a certainty the existence
of God ? Cannot a man be moral without belief
in God? Is not virtue its own reward?

The most common proof, and perhaps the
oldest argument, is the argument from design
("The heavens show forth the glory of God,
and the firmament declareth the work of His
hands.' ' — Ps. xviii. i) ; namely, that the har-
mony and order of the universe point to an
Intelligent and Infinite Designer, God. The
chronometer with every particle of its mechan-
ism moving in such perfect harmony as to de-
clare the time of day to a second ; the automatic
machines in our large factories, which do the
work of thousands of men silently from morning
until night under the influence of steam or
electricity, evidence a skilled human intelli-
gence that designed them. So likewise this
vast universe of ours, with its thousands of
complex, interlacing laws, all manifesting a
wondrous intelligent adaptation of means to
ends, points to a Supreme Intelligence that de-
signed them all*

Digitized by

2

The Question Box.

The heavens with its myriads of stars revolv-
ing through space without the slightest inter-
ference one with the other; this earth with its
quick rush through space, of which we are
unconscious ; the constant succession of the sea-
sons, the beauty of the structure of the tiniest
fern, the laws of instinct in the brute creation,
the special adaptation of the various organs and
senses of the human body, all declare an Intel-
ligent Lawmaker by whose wisdom all has
been established.

Scientific men have in our day of unbelief
endeavored to destroy the force of this ar-
gument; but their attempt has failed, for
science is merely furnishing new data for its
defence. Says Professor Huxley (" Evolution
and Ethics/ 9 page 58, Appleton, 1894): "If
the belief in a God is essential to morality,
physical science has no more to say against the
probability of that doctrine than the most ordi-
nary experience has. And it effectually closes
the mouths of those who pretend to refute it by
objections drawn from merely physical data."

Some have said that this harmony is due to
mere physical causes, and that matter must
necessarily obey the laws of nature. But who
but God established these laws ? To say that
nature did, is to make nature intelligent, or to
call God by another name. Again, with some
the theory of evolution has in some way wea^T

Digitized by Google

The Existence of God.

3

•ened the force of this argument. And yet, as
Romanes declared (Nineteenth Century y June,
1888), all that evolution has accomplished "is
to throw back the question of design from the
facts immediately observed to the causes subse-
quently discovered. And there the question
must be left by science, to be taken up by
philosophy.' ' As the evidence of design points
to a Designer, so evolution points to an Intelli-
gence who is the origin of the universal law of
progress.

( Again, the fact that all nations, civilized and
barbarian alike, have believed in the existence
of a Supreme Being admits of but one explana-
tion, viz., that the human mind, by the princi-
ple of; causality, can prove that God does exist.
So plain is this that the Psalmist and the Apos-
tle do not hesitate to call those who deny this
truth inexcusable and foolish (Ps. lii. 1 ; Rom.
i. 20-23), and the Catholic Church voices their
teaching in the Vatican Council (Const. Dei
Filius, ch. xi.) , " declaring that God, the begin-
ning and end of all things, may be known with
certainty by the natural light of human reason,
by means of created things." (Fox, " Religion
and Morality,' 9 Part L, ch. ii; Tylor, "Prim-
itive Culture"; Quatrefages, "The Human
Species " ; Lang, " The Making of Religion.")
One of the strongest and most convincing
proofs, however, is the moral argument. In

Digitized by

4

The Question Box.

every man, no matter how low lie may be in
the scale of civilization, there is a conviction of
the essential difference between good and evil,
and the obligation to do good and avoid evil.
No matter how much men may differ as to
what is right and what is wrong, all feel that in
doing evil (as murder, adultery, theft, calum-
ny) they are going directly against an inward
monitor called conscience, which voices the
commands of the eternal moral order, and
speaks in the name of a Supreme Moral Law-
giver, God.

Men have obeyed this law although it meant
the denial of self, and went counter to all their
inclinations and desires, for it carried with it
the sanction of reward and punishment here-
after. The literature, law, and institutions of
all peoples are based on the existence of this
moral order, which points clearly to an Eternal
Lawgiver who is the origin and foundation
thereof.

The unbelievers of our day have attempted
in vain to frame theories of morality indepen-
dent of religion. Is utility to be the basis of
morality ? Then all those who are a burden to
the state, the sick, the' aged, the convicts,
should not be allowed to live. Is happiness the
basis of morality? Then marital infidelity is
moral, when both husband and wife agree to be
unfaithful. Is virtue its own reward ? Experi-

Digitized by

The Existence of God.

5

ence proves that often virtue walks in rags and
poverty, while vice drives by in a coach and
four. Is the benefit to posterity sufficient?
Not one man in a million would be influenced
by that motive.

No, the only basis of morality is the exist-
ence of God, the great Lawgiver, who has
written His law on the heart of man (Rom. ii.
15), and given him the light of reason to find
out the rest of the moral law that He has re-
vealed. " Morality,' ' writes Liddon ("Some
Elements of Religion," p. 18), "severed from
religious motive, is like a branch cut from a
tree ; it may here and there, from accidental
causes, retain its greenness for awhile, but its
chance of vigorous life is a very slender one.
Nor is it possible to popularize a real morality,
a morality that shall deal with motives as well
as with acts, without unveiling to the eye of
the soul something more personal than an ab-
stract law." (Fox, " Religion and Morality " ;
Ward, " Witnesses to the Unseen* 9 ; Newman,
" Grammar of Assent,' ' ch. v.; Schanz, " Apol-
ogy," vol. i.; Card. Gibbons, "Our Christian
Heritage, " chaps, i., ii., Hi.; Ronayne, "God,
Knowable and Known " ; Driscoll, " God.")

Do not some travellers declare that there are
tribes without any belief in God?

Many indeed have so declared (Lubbock,

Digitized by

6

The Question Box.

" Origin of Civilization"), only to be corrected
by later and more exact investigators, who
have shown that the mistake arose from a too
superficial study of the religion in question, an
ignorance of the peculiar idioms of a language,
a false inference whereby tribes with false and
crude notions of the Deity were thought abso-
lutely to deny His existence. (Flint, "Anti-
theistic Theories,' ' p. 525; Tylor, "Primitive
Culture," vol. i. ch. xi.; De Harlez, "World's
Parliament of Religions," vol. ii. p. 613.)

Is not conscience a sufficient guide for a man,
without his believing in God ? I know many un-
believers who live better lives than some Chris-
tians*

No ; for conscience, although it is reason
telling us in a particular instance the good
to be done and the evil to be avoided, would
be powerless to command men unless it voiced
the eternal law and spoke with the authority
of God. If we were to divorce religion from
morality, and allow reason, subject as it is
to public opinion, caprice, passion, prejudice,
to speak in its own name, the whole basis and
sanction of the moral order would at once dis-
appear, and the essential distinction between
right and wrong would soon be lost.

Concerning the good lives of unbelievers,
Balfour writes : 1 * Biologists tell us of para-

Digitized by

Divine Providence.

7

sites which live, and can only live, within
the bodies of animals more highly organized
than they. . • . So it is with those per-
sons who claim to show, by their example,
that naturalism is practically consistent with
the maintenance of ethical ideals with which
naturalism has no natural affinity. Their spir-
itual life is parasitic; it is sheltered by con-
victions which belong, not to them but to
the society of which they form a part; it is
nourished by processes in which they take no
share. And when those convictions decaj*, and
those processes come to an end, the alien life
which they have maintained can scarce be ex-
pected to outlast them 99 (" Foundations of Be-
lief," pp. 82, 83).

DIVINE PROVIDENCE.

How is it that a good and just God allows the
wicked to prosper in the world, while the good
are afflicted with every misery?

As a matter of fact prosperity is by no means
the special prerogative of the wicked, and
misery the universal lot of the good. Many
good souls are gifted by God with health,
wealth, social position, and other blessings,
while the wicked frequently receive their pun-
ishment in this life in the form of remorse,

Digitized by

6

The Question Box.

poverty, disease, disgrace, imprisonment, and
death.

We must also not forget Jh^t ip the midst of
great adversity the virtuous poor frequently
possess a happy home, true friends, the con-
solations of religion, and the joy of a good
conscience, which more than compensate for
their lack of worldly goods.

Granted, however, that in many an instance
the wicked prosper and the good are afflicted.
That does not prove God unjust or evil, but
proves rather the existence of an after life,
Where an infinitely just God will right all the
injustice of this. This life is a time of trial,
during which man must prove himself worthy
of eternal happiness. The reward comes only
after our work is done, — at the hour xA death.
The sufferings, therefore, of the good in this
life, ought to be regarded as part of the pun-
ishment due to their sins and as a chance of
merit, while the prosperity of the wicked ought
to be looked upon as the reward here for the
good they have wrought. "Woe to you that
are rich, for you have your consolation " (I^uke
vi. 24). " For I reckon that the sufferings of
this time are not worthy to be compared with
the glory to come" (Rom. viii. 18).

Digitized by

Moral and Physical Evil

9

MORAI/ AND PHYSICAL EVIL.

If God is infinitely good, why does so much evil
exist in the world ? Why does not God, who is
all powerful, destroy evil? Christians must
choose between either horn of this dilemma : if
God cannot prevent evil, He is not omnipotent.
If God will not, He is not infinitely good.

The difficulty of reconciling the existence of
evil with the providence of God has been felt
from the beginning. Christianity does not pre-
tend to answer the problem fully, but declares
it the height of folly for men to deny the many
and overwhelming proofs that reason gives us
of God's infinite goodness and love, simply
because in our ignorance we cannot explain
the complete working out of the divine plan.

The Christian is not disconcerted by the ex-
istence of physical evils, for he knows they are
the consequence of original sin. If Adam had
been faithful, the race would have been free
therefrom. The Christian realizes also that
much of the poverty, sickness, and misery in
the world is directly traceable to the actual sins
of men. Is it reasonable to blame God for
the poverty of the tenement-house dweller,
when often we know that it is due to the
drunkenness and improvidence of an unworthy
father of a family ? Is it reasonable to blame
God for the diseased children who are the fruit

Digitized by

io The Question Box.

of immoral parents ? God, indeed, could, in
His omnipotence, prevent nature's laws from
acting in these cases; but no one can prove
that He is bound to perform a miracle.

The Christian, again, knows that physical
evil is often in reality a positive favor and
blessing of God to the individual, and always,
though we in our ignorance may not perceive
it, has some good purpose in God's universal
plan. That frequently a bed of pain has
brought a great sinner back after many years
to his God, the priest who works among the
people can testify. How often the loss of
worldly goods has stripped a man of his pride,
avarice, and lust, because he began for the first
time to realize the uncertainty of material pros-
perity and the fact of his utter dependence
on God. God can bring good out of evil, as
we see in the case of Joseph in the Old Law,
or in the great mystery of the redemption — the
death of Jesus Christ at the hands of those
He came to save. Even if we at times cannot
see the good, our reason tells us it must be
there.

But the innocent suffer so much ! Granted,
but again Christianity teaches that this life is
not the all ; that physical evils give us a chance
to acquire the virtues of humility and patience,
to satisfy in union with Christ for our sins,
and to merit through Christ for God's king-

Digitized by

Moral and Physical Evil.

II

dom. They are a constant reminder that " we
have not here a lasting city, but we seek one
that is to come" (Heb. xiii. 14); " for that
which is at present momentary and light of
our tribulation, worketh for us above meas-
ure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory"
(II. Cor. iv. 17).

With regard to moral evil, the Catholic
Church teaches that God in no way wills sin.
On the contrary every page of Scripture wit-
nesses how greatly He detests it, and how
severely He punishes it. Any sect which
made God the author of evil, was by the very
fact stamped as an irrational and immoral
parody of Christianity.

Does God cease to be infinitely good because
the creatures He made with free will to obey
His law, and endowed with the grace necessary
to fulfil their destiny, refuse knowingly and de-
liberately to observe that law, and reject God's
proffered help ? God is perfect justice, and
will take into account every possible factor
that might palliate the sins of men, such as
the example of wicked parents, birth in the
slums, inherited tendencies of evil, lack of re-
ligious education, temperament, and the like;
but the worst of men realizes that he is free
to do the right and avoid the wrong. Can he
rightly blame God, if he freely choose evil
with its consequences here and hereafter?

Digitized by

The Question Box,

; Why, then, did God make us free ? is the
further objection of the unbeliever. We grant
that God could have created a world free
from all evil; that He could by constant
miracle have preserved man from all sin with-
out interfering with His free will. But as a
matter of fact He has not done so, and no one
can say that He was bound so to do.

He made us free because He wished to be
freely served by His creatures; because He
knew He could restore the disturbed moral
order by the sanction of His eternal punish-
ment of the sinner; because He knew how to
draw good out of evil.

We must in the last analysis, therefore, say
that the existence of moral evil is a great mys-
tery, but that its existence is in no way refer-
able to God, but to the sins of our first parents
and the actual sins of men. The great remedy
of evil is Jesus Christ's atonement on the cross
and the grace of God which comes therefrom^
especially in the Mass and the Sacraments es-
tablished by the Saviour.

Take, if you dare, the alternative: There
is no God. Does that do away with the fact
of moral evil ? Or the alternative : God is in-
finitely bad. Does the addition of such bad-
ness to the sum of moral evil help the case ?
{American Catholic Quarterly, 1889, p. 140).

Digitized by

The JmmoHtality of the Soul. 13

THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.

How do you prove that the soul is immortal ?
Hay not the soul perish with the body, and death
end all ?

Independently even of the clear witness of
revelation in both the Old Testament and the
New, reason plainly postulates the immortality
of the soul.

(1) Everywhere and at all times have men
believed firmly in an after life. No matter
what false and superstitious notions might pre-
vail among savage tribes, or what philosophical
doctrines might be held by the more cultured,
the respect shown for the bodies of the dead,
the religious rites and practices connected with
their burial, the conviction of a reward or
punishment hereafter for good and evil done
in this life, all clearly point to a universal be-
lief in immortality, planted in man's reason by
God, who made us for Himself.

(2) Many, like Rousseau, have considered the
evident inequality and injustice of this life one
of the strongest proofs of a life to come. The
virtuous and innocent poor often suffer greatly,
while the dishonest and unjust rich travel
about in luxury and comfort. Suffering, sor-
row, disease, poverty, are by no means appor-
tioned according to a man's guilt or innocence.

Digitized by Google

14

The Questian Box.

Life, therefore, is a meaningless, insoluble prob-
lem, and pessimism the only philosophy, unless
we postulate a future life, in which an infinitely
just God will make good the injustice and in-
equality of this, rendering just judgment to
each according to his works.

(3) Again, the great craving of man's in-
tellect for truth, and his intense longing for
happiness, both of which are never satisfied in
this life, point to God, the Eternal Truth,
Goodness, and Beauty, who can alone make
man perfectly happy hereafter. Man may fol-
low after riches, pleasures, place, science; he
may seek and attain a certain amount of knowl-
edge and happiness here ; but the sense of life's
incompleteness and its vanity soon dawn upon
him, and he realizes the word of St. Augustine :
" Thou hast made us for Thyself, O God, and
our hearts are not at rest until they rest in
Thee."

(4) Conscience, by its commandment to do
the right and avoid the wrong, and its reward
of peace for good done and its punishment of
remorse for evil, points clearly to God, who in
the life to come will eternally reward the good
and punish the wicked.

Indeed, if there be no future life, why should
an intelligent man give heed to the dictate of
conscience when it warns or threatens ? What
difference would there be between right and

Digitized by

The Immortality of the Soul. 1 5

wrong? Why worry about the law, if there
will be no punishment for the law-breaker ? If
this life is all, why preach patience to the poor,
justice to the rich, purity to the sensual,
humility to the proud? No wonder that an-
archy to-day seeks to gain its end by murder ;
it is the logical outcome of unbelief in the
souPs immortality.

(5) The soul does not perish with the body,
because it is not' a material, but a simple, spir-
itual substance, containing in itself no ele-
ment of destruction or disintegration. Although
united to the body, the soul's life is inde-
pendent of the body, and is not subject to the
laws that govern matter. Any text book of
philosophy may be consulted on this argument.
(Cf. Maher's " Psychology," Stonyhurst series;
J. S. Vaughan, "Immortality of the Soul";
Driscoll, "The Soul," ch. xi. ; American
Catholic Quarterly, 1877, pp. 123, 347).

Why was any revelation needed? Could not
man get along by his own unaided reason ?

A study of the nations before the coming of
the Saviour will show the failure of the unaided
reason to tell man of his duties toward self, his
neighbor, and God. We find the prophets
Jeremias, Ezechiel, and Nahum protesting
against the impure rites of Moloch and Baal.
The blood of human sacrifice flowed in Phce-

Digitized by

16

The Question Box.

nicia, Tyre, Chanaan, Carthage, Athens, and
Rome. The worship of idols was carried on
with the most impure orgies, as we may read
on nearly every page of the early church
writers. Fable and myth were the basis of
gross idolatry, and thieving, treacherous, and
adulterous gods were held up to the imitation
of the people. Superstition affected all classes,
so that the trade of soothsayer, augur, and
magician was actually a sacred priesthood.
Scepticism reigned among the cultured and the
philosophers, who still kept up the public wor-
ship in the temples the better to control the
people. Even Plato recommends the exposure
to death of weakly children, advocates com-
munity of wives, upholds slavery, antjr tolerates
the worst forms of immorality. Cicero tells us
that nothing was too absurd for a philosopher's
creed, and that, together with their ignorance,
uncertainty, and contradictions on the most
elemental questions of reason — i. the exist-
ence and nature of God, the immortality of the
soul, etc. — they led lives of the greatest immo-
rality. In our own day the same holds good.
Reason alone cannot teach men, for the modern
pantheistic philosopher in one moment exalts
man to the divinity, while in the next the
materialist places him on a level with the
brute beast.
At the time of Christ, the world felt the need

Digitized by

The Immortality of the Soul. 1 7

of a teacher who could teach with authority
the truths of God to all men. Without divine
revelation the truths of dogma and morals could
never be known fully, and indeed some of them
would have remained a puzzle and an enigma
until the end. Men had to be taught by God
His truth, His commandments, His pure wor-
ship, the malice of sin, the need of atonement
and of pardon, the means of reaching the God
who made us, the salvation of God in Christ
Jesus.

Christ was the answer of the world's longing
for a divine, infallible teacher of God's truth.
His Church is the continuation of that divine,
infallible teaching until the second coming of
the Chrisjt. (Hettinger (Bowden), "Revealed
Religion/ * ch. ii.; Schariz, " A Christian Apol-
ogy,* ' vol. ii. ch. viii.; Gibbons, "Our Chris-
tian Heritage, ' ' passim . )

Is not religion a question of education and
environment rather than of , intellectual con-
viction ?

I readily grant that many are Catholics,
Protestants, or unbelievers because their parents
were so before them, or because of their early
education. But the Catholic Church teaches
that faith is an act of the intellect based on
rational motives of credibility that will stand
any test, needing only a good will on the part

Digitized by

18

The Question Box.

of the individual, and the grace of God, which
is never refused to those who ask it, to enable a
man to counteract the false teachings of his
education or environment. The nature of faith
can be seen from its official definition at the
Vatican Council, Sess. III. ch. iii. : " Seeing
that man wholly dependeth upon God as his
Creator and Lord, and seeing that created rea-
son is entirely subject to the uncreated truth,
we are bound to submit by faith our intellect
and will to God the Revealer. But this faith,
which is the beginning of man's salvation, the
Church confesseth to be a supernatural virtue,
whereby, with the help of God's grace, we be-
lieve what He revealeth, not because we per-
ceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of
our reason, but on account of the authority of
God the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor
be deceived.' '

If one's education and environment happen
to be in accord with divine truth, so much the
better. But if as the years roll by a man real-
izes the poverty of the partial gospel he pos-
sesses, or the nothingness of a despairing unbe-
lief, he is bound in conscience and in loyalty to
truth to search earnestly for the revelation of
God to man.

Digitized by Google

The Immortality of the Soul.

19

Is not religion a mere question of feeling or 1
emotion ? I have noticed at revivals that the
amount of religion seemed to be in proportion
to the excitement caused.

Not at all. You must not judge Christianity
by the excesses of those who have lost the pure
gospel. The Catholic Church protests most
strongly against a religion of mere subjective
feeling, which at revival meetings, under stress
of great nervous excitement, makes the emo-
tions take the place of rational conviction.
There is nothing in the Scriptures to warrant
an absolute certainty of salvation. On the con-
trary they declare that "No man knoweth
whether he be worthy of love or hatred ' ' (Eccles.
ix* 1), and warn us "to work out our salva-
tion with fear and trembling" (Phil. ii. 12). „
The Catholic Church, while cultivating rational
religious emotion, safeguards her children
against all emotional delusion, by declaring
faith an act of the intellect guided by an up-
right will, and helped by God's grace; and
conversion possible only by a heartfelt sorrow
for sin committed, and confession of the same
to the Ambassador of Christ (II. Cor. v. 20),
with a firm promise to offend no more. A
Catholic knows there is no danger of deception,
because he believes in the authority of God,
voiced to him by the living, infallible witness
of Christ's mouthpiece, the Church of God.

Digitized by

20 The Question Box,

— 1

INDIFFERENTISM.

Are not all religions good?

Is not one religion as good as another ?

Why is it necessary to accept any creed ? Will
not my hereafter be secure if I live a good, hon-<
est life according to my conscience ?

What difference does it make what religion a
man professes, provided he lives up to it?

Will God ask me hereafter what creed I pro-
fessed, or rather, what kind of a life I have
lived ?

These questions all voice the most popular
religion of the twentieth century : the religion
of Indifferentism. It is practically the creed
of nine out of ten in the outside churches to-
day, which have almost completely lost the old-
time orthodoxy of the sixteenth century. It
is the inevitable reaction from the first faise
principle of Protestantism : the formula, ' ' Faith
alone without works will save," has now be-
come, in the hands of* the descendants of
Luther, " Works alone without faith will save."
Men have wearied of the many dissensions of
the sects, with their denial of one pope and
their creating of many, and have carried the
second principle of Protestantism, private judg-
ment, to its logical conclusion by utterly deny-
ing the right to be taught by any man, which
first clothes itself under the quasi-respectable

Digitized by

Indifferentism.

21

garb of Indifferentism prior to going the full
way of unbelief.

Indifferentism is the most subtle enemy of the
true faith, much harder to combat than the
bitter bigotry of the old-fashioned Protestant-
The latter, once disabused of his false ideas of
the Church and his inherited prejudices, is open
to conviction. But the Indifferentist who de-
clares God is indifferent to truth simply because
he himself is so, and who boasts of a religion
free from obligations and restraint, is hardly
apt to ' consider the claims of a definite dog-
matic religion which requires absolute faith
and enforces its laws under penalty of damna-
tion.

Is it not strange, however, that the very man
who worries night and day over some business
difficulties, or who sacrifices health and comfort
in his search for money, political preferment,
the interests of science and the like, should on
the other hand be totally indifferent to his
eternal welfare ? How can any serious-minded
man neglect to consider the claims of God and
his immortal soul?

The assertion that * * one religion is as good
as another* ' is evidently a self-contradiction.
It is a first principle of reason that two contra-
dictory statements cannot both be true. If one
is true, the other is undoubtedly false. Either
there are many Gods or one God ; either Jesus

Digitized by

22

The Question Box.

Christ is the Son of God or He is not ; either
Mohammed is a prophet or an impostor ; divorce
is either lawful or not ; either Jesus Christ is
present in the Blessed Sacrament or He is not.
To declare that therefore Protestantism, Mo-
hammedanism, Polytheism, Catholicism are
equally true, is therefore to deny objective
truth altogether. On this theory a man ought
to change his religion as he changes his clothes
— according to his environment. He ought to
be a Catholic in Italy, a Protestant in Sweden,
, a Mohammedan in Turkey, a Jew in Judea, a
Brahmin in India, and a Parsee in Persia.
x The God of Indifferentism is, moreover, not
a God to be adored by rational men ; God is
the essential, absolute, and eternal truth. Of
necessity He must hate error and wickedness.
To assert, therefore, that God does not care
what men believe, that He is indifferent whether
they believe truth or falsehood, consider good
evil or evil good, accept His revelation or re-
ject it at will, is nothing short of blasphemy.
A man indifferent to truth — a liar, in other
words — cannot have the respect of his fellows.
A God indifferent to truth is a self-contradic- »
tion. No wonder, then, that men who form so
low a conception of the Deity should end in
denying Him altogether. Indifferentism is un-
belief in disguise.

But is not '* goodness " the one thing essen-

Digitized by

Indifferentism.

23

tial? Why worry about creeds, dogmas, or
formulas of belief? Undoubtedly goodness is
absolutely necessary ; but the Indifferentist for-
gets that faith is a virtue essential to sal-
vation ; that a firm, unhesitating belief in the
doctrines revealed by God is the very founda-
tion-stone of supernatural goodness. A creed
is merely the concrete expression of revealed
truth. .^k"-g6od"T&a«^mTr§t accept God's worct>^
r'^wiCfe he knows it; a good man must seek to /*
discover what God has said, once he doubts
regarding his own religious faith. Faith is
part of a good life ; it is the first step on the
j road to God's Kingdom ; it isthe entrance
] virtue to the supernatural life Jlf it were not
necessary the Son of God could not enforce it
upon us all under penalty of damnation, as He /
did when He said to the Apostles, "He that/
, believeth not shall b^cgndemned (damned) '/
V (Mark xvi. 16). f If it were a matter of option
the Apostle could^ not have written, 41 Without
faith it is impossible to please God" ,Heb.
xi. 6).

The Indifferentist tends to an easy, vague,
varying sort of goodness, which reason and
revelation both emphatically declare to be evil.
He calls good whatever falls in with his own
inclinations. He is not good according to the
divine standard, which is the only kind of
goodness that avails for salvation.

Digitized by

24

The Question Box.

There is no record of the doctrine of In-
differentism in the Scriptures ; there is no trace
of it in all Christian history. Jesus Christ told
His Apostles (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) to preach to
all men the doctrines that He had commanded
them to teach : " Going, teach ye all nations :
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever
I have commanded you." His was a definite,
clear gospel, that the Apostles were to guard
faithfully with their life-blood and hand down
to their successors until the end of the world.
Useless indeed would have been their preach-
ing, suffering, and death, a mockery the death
of millions of martyrs, a stupendous bit of folly
the sacrifices of converts from the first day of
Christianity, if it were true that it made no
difference what a man believed.

Why does St. Paul insist so much on the
unity of faith, " one Lord, one Faith, one Bap-
tism" (Eph. iv. 5), and so bitterly denounce
the Judaizers of his time for attempting to force
the obsolete customs of the Old I^aw upon the
early Christians, if it matters nothing ? ' 1 There
are some that trouble you and would pervert
the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an
angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you
besides that which we have preached to you,
let him be anathema " (Gal. i. 7, 8 ; cf. I. Tim.
vi. 20; II. Tim. i. 14; II. Thess. ii. 14).

So from the beginning, the Popes, as the

Digitized by Google

Indifferentism.

25

great confirmers of the faith of the wavering
brethren (Luke xxii. 32), have always de-
nounced error and heresy, and council after
council of Christian bishops, from the Council
of Jerusalem in the first century to the Coun-
cil of the Vatican in the nineteenth, have ut-
tered their protest against any corruption of
the faith of Christ, giving the lie direct to the
false and destructive creed of modern Indif-
ferentism.

It is, therefore, the first duty of a rational
man to love truth, and to embrace it at the
cost of any sacrifice. It is the mark of a
coward and a fool to shirk one's responsi-
bility to the light that God vouchsafes to every
intellect that He has fashioned after His own.
We despise a man who has no convi^ions
or principles ; he is not to be trusted^ Go3
^Spfeca d maii-^iLhutrr religious convictions,
or firm principles of faith. He says Himself |
to the Indifferentist : * ' I would thou wert t
cold or hot. But because thou art lukewarm, $
and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit j
Jjjfie out of my mouth* ' (Apoc. iii. .15, i61»/
We despise a " tfimmer-"-^can God love the
Indifferentist ?

Practically also we find that the man who
says first, "It does not make any difference
what a man believes," is tempted to adopt
its logical conclusion, and say ' ' It does not

Digitized by Google

26

The Question Box.

make any difference what a man does." His
morality is built on the shifting sands of
opinion, fancy, human respect, and therefore
will hardly stand the strain of sorrow, dis-
grace, difficulty, or temptation. If religion is
mere opinion, a man realizes that all certainty
of doctrine or morals is impossible, and there-
fore some form of unbelief is the inevitable
result. (MacLaughlin, "Is one Religion as
Good as Another ?")

Does not the Bible declare that " God is not a
respecter of persons " and that " He who feareth
Him, and worketh justice is acceptable to Him " ?
(Acts x, 34, 35). Is it not sufficient, therefore,
for a man to be good and charitable, as this pagan
centurion was, without bothering about creeds ?

This text is frequently on the lips of men
who from force of tradition still quote Bible
texts, although they are unwilling to follow
the Scripture teaching in every point. To
quote the words of St. Peter without the con-
text, and thus make God's word witness to the
doctrine of indifferentism, is anything but rea-
sonable.

The text evidently means that the gospel
of Jesus Christ is not limited to the Jews,
but is for all peoples, and that His grace also
is given to all men without exception. Again,
that a man living according to the light vouch-

Digitized by Google

Indifferentism.

27

safed him, fearing God and doing good as
far as he possibly can under the grace of God,
although ignorant of the true gospel, is accept-
able to God. The instant such a one discovers
the true religion, he will embrace it at once
without question, as Cornelius did, no matter
what the cost.

Why does the God of truth permit so many
false religions in the world ? In view of the
multitude of religions in the world, and the di-
versities of sects among Christians, is not the
attitude of a sceptic perfectly reasonable ? All
religions claim to be right, and yet all cannot
be. What, then, is a man to do, for he has not
time to study all?

We readily admit that the existence of so
many false religions is a great evil, and that its
explanation will ever remain difficult and mys-
terious. But because finite man has not been
admitted into the secrets of the Infinite God,
must he thereby deny His all-ruling provi-
dence? By no 'means. The true manner of
arguing is thus set forth by Balmes : "The
evil exists, it is true ; but that Providence also
exists, is no less certain ; apparently these are
two things which cannot coexist ; but as you
know for certain they do exist, this apparent
contradiction is not sufficient to make you deny
their existence. What you should do, is to

Digitized by

28

The Question Box,

seek a means of removing this contradiction;
and in case you cannot possibly discover one,
attribute this impossibility to your own inabil-
ity 99 (" Letters to a Sceptic," II. p. 24, W. B.
Kelly, Dublin, 1875).

This is our way of acting in every-day life
when we come across some fact, vouched for by
unimpeachable testimony, which appears to
contradict our previous .knowledge. nI do not
see how it can be so," a man says, with regard
to some of the facts of hypnotism, ''but it un-
doubtedly is so. My ignorance of the explana-
tion does not render the facts any the less true."

The only solution to the mystery lies in the
Catholic dogma of original sin, with its count-
less train of evils all down the course of history.

Practically, however, this fact should not
make a man a sceptic or an infidel. The man
of science is spurred on to study and investi-
gate, so that the working hypotheses now held
by the scientist in general may be stepping-
stones for him to true facts and principles. If
a man, therefore, is without faith in Christ, he
surely ought not to rest content with his ignor-
ance of the truth of God. His reason will tell
him that God exists ; that God is good and
true and loving ; that God has spoken. „ A man
that studies conscientiously, and prays with
humility for the truth, will, through God's
help, find out what God has said, and which

Digitized by

Mysteries.

29

religion is the true one. He is not bound to
study them all, any more than a scientist has to
worry over the exploded theories of the ancients. •
Surely the first demand upon one's study is
that Church which has taught infallibly for
1900 years the pure gospel of Jesus Christ,
witnessing to Him even through countless
storms of persecution, thriving on the blood of
many martyrs, fulfilling the prophecies of the
old law, proving herself by miracles, winning
the intellect of men by the sublimity of her
dogma, conquering the heart by the holiness
of her morality — the Church Catholic, the great
defender of the rights of God and the rights of
man.

MYSTERIES.

What scientific proof is there of the divinity of
the Christian religion?

The facts of science can be proved and tested,
but what proof can you show of things invisible
and incomprehensible? I am willing to accept
only what can be clearly demonstrated.

This common objection of the modern unbe-
liever is about as reasonable as the denial of
the existence of South Africa to-day, or of
George Washington a hundred and fifty years
ago, simply because these facts were not capa-
ble of scientific demonstration, but rested mere-

Digitized by

30 ' The Question Box.

ly on the authority of others. Although indeed
the testimony of others may at times be false
and misleading, because the witness may be
deceived or a deceiver, still no one can reason-
ably reject altogether the principle of human
evidence as a criterion of truth, any more than
he would reject ocular testimony because a par-
ticular individual was short-sighted, cross-eyed,
or color-blind.

Indeed, the very man who boasts of accept-
ing nothing unless he can personally prove it
to his own satisfaction, is daily giving the lie to
his pet theory. Most of his knowledge depends
not on personal investigation, but on the au-
thority of others. No progress would be possi-
ble in any science or art unless a man started
with the data gathered by his predecessors.
Will a historian of universal history be able to
read all the original documents ? Will a chem-
ist find time to test every experiment of his
forbears? Will a lawyer manage to study
every case in the reports, a geographer visit
every country, a physician experiment with
every drug, before he accepts anything as true ?
Life is too short and facts too many to allow of
this. And yet some of these men reject the
idea of authority in religion. Is it not the way
that most men must learn anything whatever ?

How frequently it happens that the same
man who swallows without question the human,

Digitized by

Mysteries.

31

fallible, hesitating, and changing authority of
an anti-Christian dogmatist, will refuse the
authority of God, voiced in a certain, unchang-
ing, infallible and divine authority. Is not this
unreasonable, to say the least? "If we re-
ceive the testimony of men, the testimony of
God is greater' ' (I. John v. 9).

A thinking man, therefore, realizing that he
is exercising faith every day in his business,
intellectual, and social life, will not demand of
Christianity a method of proof impossible in the
nature of things, but will reasonably investigate
the reliability of the authority that voices to
him the truths of God, He asks not experi-
mental proof for the divine truths that are over
and above reason, but simply : Is there evi-
dence from authority that Christ is the Son of
God, and His religion divine ? He will disa-
buse himself of every prejudice, and study with
humility and earnestness the various evidences
of Christianity ; the argument from miracles
and prophecy, the absolute perfection of Jesus
Christ, His resurrection from the dead, His
sublime, unique teachings, the marvellous
spread and continuance of His Church despite
every obstacle, the testimony of the martyrs,
the lives of the saints of God, the transforma-
tion of tiie world effected by Christianity, etc.
Only those who come with the humility and
docility of little children will learn the mysteries

Digitized by

•

32 The Question Box.

of God. " Unless you be converted, and be-
come as little children, you shall not enter into
the kingdom of heaven 99 (Matt, xviii. 3).

Should not a man be perfectly impartial in
the study of Christianity, and not be carried
away by a wish to believe?

If by impartiality you mean a mere abstract
interest in the matter of religion, being perfectly
indifferent whether the issue be faith or agnos-
ticism, I answer that such impartiality would
be fatal to all deep, earnest study. While, on
the one hand, a rational mind ought not to be
carried away by the superstitious enthusiasm of
revival religion, he must, however, realize that
he cannot face the religious problem as he
would a theme in geometry, for it is fraught
with knowledge of the greatest possible per-
sonal importance to himself, — it concerns hi§
happiness here and hereafter.

The existence of God, our origin and destiny,
the fact of eternal punishment, or the divinity of
Christ, must be viewed in their practical bear-
ing. There must be a desire to know, a wish
to believe these stupendous truths, if belief in
them is rational, and an earnest resolution to do
one's utmost to see whether they are true or
not.

This supposes a will to believe, which does
not blind one's mind to the evidences of Chris-

Digitized by

Mysteries.

33

tianity by substituting, as some think, the emo-
tions for the intellect, but on the contrary
makes the rational seeker after truth more alert
to know, and more careful in his search.

For a full treatment of this difficulty read
" The Wish to Believe/ 9 by Wilfred Ward;
London, Kegan Paul, 1885.

I cannot accept Christianity, because it deals
with incomprehensible mysteries. My reason
tells me not to accept anything that I do not
comprehend.

Must not a man blind himself perfectly, be-
fore he accept such dogmas as the Trinity, the
Divinity of Christ, Transubstantiation, etc.?

Do not these so-called truths evidently go
counter to my reason?

It is strange that so many to-day, in the
name of reason and science, refuse to^ccept
the mysteries of faith. Qne would imagine
that mystery or the incomprehensible was pe-
culiar to religion, yet a moment's reflection
will convince us that we are surrounded by
mystery. In the order of nature the scientist
finds it impossible to explain the simplest
phenomena of light, heat, force, electricity.
Science may tell of facts : that this earth of
ours travels through space at the rate of a
thousand miles a minute ; that the sun, which
weighs 300,000 times as much, is suspended,

Digitized by

34

TJie Question Box.

one knows not how, in an element subtler than
air; that the planets and the stars move in
certain paths, so well defined that their position
can be foretold a century hence if need be ;
that given certain conditions of light, heat,
and moisture, the little seed will develop into
a mighty tree, etc.; but to explain them, it can
do no more than coin words which but veil the
ignorance of their framers. "I know," said
Newton, "the laws of attraction; but if you
ask me what attraction is, I really cannot tell."
(J. S. Vaughan, " Faith and Folly," chap,
i.; Hettinger, "Revealed Religion," edited by
H. S. Bowden, ch. i.)

How foolish to hope adequately to compre-
hend all the truths of God. Can the finite
mind of man grasp the infinite ? As well say
that the unlettered miner, who slaves from morn
till night in the bowels of the earth, can follow
the theme of a Beethoven symphony, or appre-
ciate a canto of Dante's "Inferno." What
indeed is a revelation that reveals nothing?
What is a religion all of whose truths are with-
in the compass of reason? If indeed in reli-
gion the element of mystery were done away
with, our rationalist objector would instantly
point in triumph to its human origin.

The true rationalist does not first ask, " How
can this be true?" but "Has God spoken?
Can we know with real certainty all that He

Digitized by

Mysteries.

35

has said?" He knows that if God has given
a message unto men, there must needs be diffi-
culties and mysteries, for these abound even
in the works of God (Eccles. viii. 17). None
of the mysteries of Christianity go counter to
reason. St. Thomas says: "Although the
doctrines of faith surpass the truths of human
understanding, there can be no opposition be-
tween them. Both proceed from God in their
respective orders of grace and nature. And
the doctrines of faith become as indubitable,
through the evidence of the divine authority
revealing them, as the primary truths of rea-
son do through their self-evident testimony
("Cont. Gent." i. 7).

Reason having once ascertained the fact of
revelation, tells us the obligation to accept
God's word without question. It is the height
of unreason to dogmatize about unproved
scientific hypotheses, which demand a mere
blind acceptance of mysterious data, more in-
comprehensible than any Christian dogma, and
in the same breath to question "the greater
testimony of God" (I. John v. 9; Bishop
Ricards, " Catholic Christianity and Modern Un-
belief," ch. ii.)

The unbeliever who sincerely wishes to know
the truths of God must approach the study of
Christianity with the docile and humble spirit
of a child, ready to accept all the teaching of

Digitized by

36 The Question Box.

the Master, the Son of God, no matter how
mysterious or incomprehensible it may appear.
" Unless you become as little children, you
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven"
(Matt, xviii. 3).

The mysteries of Christianity rest merely on
private interpretation of the Scriptures, a very
variable quantity. Why then demand my as-
sent to them?

Our objector grasps the fact that Protestant-
ism, with its fundamental principle of private
judgment, cannot afford a satisfactory basis for
belief in the mysteries of Christianity. This is
evidenced practically in the denials to-day of
such fundamental dogmas as the divinity of
Christ, the Trinity, eternal punishment, etc.,
which are made frequently from the pulpit,
and by the pen of Christian ministers with
" liberal 99 views.

The mysteries of Christianity, on Catholic
principles, come to us on the divine authority
of the Catholic Church, which voices infallibly
the teaching of the Master, Jesus Christ. She
advises the unbeliever to divest himself of all
prejudice, and to ask in a humble, prayerful
spirit: " Has God taught these truths to the
world ? Is there a divine teacher in the world
to-day that guarantees to me absolute certainty
of all His teaching? "

Digitized by

The Trinity.

37

THE TRINITY.

I cannot believe an absurd contradiction in
terms. In your dogma of the Trinity you de-
clare that one is three and three are one. Hy
reason tells me of a personal God, and that
is all.

The dogma of the Trinity, although one of
the most profound mysteries of Christianity,
does not involve the contradiction you assert.
The teaching of the Catholic Church is that
there is one divine nature^ and in that divine
nature there are three persons. As therefore
the words one and three refer to two es-
sentially distinct things, nature and person^
there can be no question of any absurd or con-
tradictory statement of doctrine.

The dogma is thus set forth by the Athana-
sian Creed: "This is the Catholic faith: that
we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity
in Unity, neither confounding the persons nor
dividing the substance. For there is one per-
son of the Father, another of the Son, and
another of the Holy Ghost ; but the Godhead
of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty
coeternal. . . . The Father is made of
none, neither created nor begotten ; the Son is
of the Father alone, not made nor created, but
begotten ; the Holy Ghost is of the Father

• 1

38

The Question Box.

and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor
begotten, but proceeding.' 9

Undoubtedly your reason would never find
out such a mystery, which even when known
by revelation, is still utterly beyond the com-
prehension of man. Catholics believe it on
the word of the Son of God, evidenced to them
with infallible certainty by the divine, infalli-
ble teacher appointed by the Saviour — the
Catholic Church.

CHRISTIAN FAITH.

I would give worlds to believe, but cannot.
Will God condemn me for something I cannot
help?

God, who is infinitely just, will condemn
only those who knowingly and deliberately
commit grievous sin and die unrepentant.

If, as you say, you cannot at present be-
lieve, I assure you that this condition of mind
is only temporary. Your duty is plain.

Do not expect to be able to grasp every-
thing in Christianity, for God's revelation
cannot be adequately known by any human
intellect. Do not look for mathematical evi-
dence for the t/uths of faith, but. study care-
fully the Christian evidences with a view to
obtaining a good working certainty that ex-
cludes all doubting. Do not be dismayed by

Digitized by

Christian Faith.

39

difficulties, remembering, as Cardinal New-
man well said, that ten thousand difficulties
do not make one doubt. Do not rationalize,
asking, with Nicodemus: "How can these
things be done?" (John iii. 9) ; or the un-
believing Jews at Capharnaum : " How can this
Man give us His flesh to eat? " (John vi. 53) ;
but rather: "Is this Jesus who teaches re-
generation and the Real Presence indeed God
revealing His divine truth to men?" Re-
member that although your reason must de-
mand sufficient proof of a revelation before
accepting it, it is not the standard of revealed
truth. Ask God's pardon for all your sins,
for wickedness blurs the spiritual vision of
many an unbeliever; as St. Paul teaches:
" The sensual man perceiveth not these things
that are of the spirit of God, for it is foolish-
ness to him, and he cannot understand, be-
cause it is spiritually examined' ' (I. Cor. ii.
14). It is frequently a short step from the
confiteor to the credo ; from the act of sorrow
to the act of faith. Earnest, heartfelt prayer
will be answered infallibly, if we come to God
with the humble and docile spirit of the child.
" If any man will do the will of Him, he shall
know of the doctrine, whether it be of God"
(John vii. 17). " If you ask the Father any-
thing in My Name, He will give it you"
(John xvi. 23).

Digitized by

40

The Question #ox.

MIRACLES.

How are miracles possible when the laws of
nature are fixed and unchangeable? Is not a
miracle a violation of the laws of nature?

It is indeed true that nature works accord-
ing to fixed laws ; but these laws are not, like
the truths of mathematics, intrinsically and
absolutely necessary. Experience tells us that,
as a rule, they are unchanging, but neither
reason nor experience asserts that the omnipo-
tent, free God, cannot intervene at will to pre-
vent their operation. God in creating the
world did not subject Himself to the laws of
His creation. A miracle, however, does not
destroy any law or even suspend its working,
but merely in a particular instance supposes
the intervention of God to prevent a certain
law from having its ordinary effect. There is
no danger of the laws of nature being over-
thrown, or science disturbed in the least ; for
miracles are rare occurrences, which simply
emphasize the more the ordinary course of
nature. Were it not for the uniformity of
nature's laws, one never could be certain of a
miracle.

Is it not strange that one should grant that
man can interfere with the working of laws,
0. overcome the law of gravitation by hold-

Digitized by

Miracles.

41

ing a stone in his hand,v and yet deny that
the infinitely free God can act above and be-
yond the laws of His own framing ? (Schanz,
"A Christian Apology," vol. i. ch. x.)

Do not miracles argue a change in an un-
changeable God?

Not at all. The ordinary action of the laws
of nature as well as the divine interference
therewith, evidenced in miracles, were alike
foreseen and willed by God for all eternity.
There is no past and future with Him. He is
the Eternally Present.

Human intelligence can suspend and control .
the forces of nature to its own temporal ad-
vantage. Why then insist that the Creator
of the world must be entirely subject to the
laws He Himself has framed ?

Perhaps what you style a miracle may be due
to some unknown law nature. You must ad-
mit that as yet we do not know all her secrets.

A little reflection will convince a man that
a knowledge of all the laws of nature is not
necessary t6 determine whether a particular
fact be miraculous or not. Medical science
may make great strides within the next Cen-
tura but no new medicine will ever be able
to call the dead to life. Hypnotic suggestion
3nay effect some wonderful new cures, but it

Digitized by CooQLe

42

The Question Box.

never will give sight to a man without eyes.
Anew Edison may make some new discover-
ies more marvellous than his, yet no inventor
will ever be able to calm the winds and waves
at a word or to pass through a closed door.

If, then, we have good evidence of an effect
beyond the power of any creature, as, for in-
stance, the feeding of five thousand men with
five loaves, the very uniformity of the laws
of science forbids us to deny the miracle in
virtue of some unknown law. It is merely a
question of evidence.

Granting miracles are possible, how, taking
into account the general unreliability of human
testimony, can any particular one be proved?

If the miracles of the Gospel were wrought
before a body of scientists, well and good; but
how trust the evidence of ignorant Galilean
peasants ?

To deny the possibility of proving a miracle
because testimony is sometimes unreliable, is
about as sensible as denying all historical facts
whatsoever because some historians may have
been deceivers or deceived. A miracle is a
question of evidence, and being a phenomenon
that falls under the senses, it can be known
with the same certainty as any other fact, — by
trustworthy evidence. An ignorant peasant
could testify as well as the most cultured phari-

Digitized by

Miracles.

43

see or modern scientist to the fact that, first,
Lazarus was dead and his body corrupt, and
that afterwards at the words of Christ, " I^aza-
rus, come forth" (John xi. 43), he instantly
came to life.

A body of scientists might themselves be
poor witnesses, especially if they would not
divest themselves of the rationalistic prejudice
which denies that miracles are possible. But
it requires no scientific acquirements whatever,
but the mere use of one's eyes, to testify to
the instant cure of atoan born blind, a leper
cleansed of his leprosy, and the like.

Do not all religions claim their miracles?
What special proving power, therefore, have the
miracles of Christ? Did not Simon Magus,
Apollonius of Tyana, Buddha, Mohammed, claim
to work miracles ? What of the Christian Scien-
tists and Dowieites of our own day?

It is true that every false religion has put
forth this claim, but these false wonders no
more disprove the existence of true miracles
than a counterfeit coin disproves the existence
of a good original.

On the contrary, they prove the universal
acceptance of miracles as a test of divine truth.

A little study of the miracles wrought by the
Saviour will bring out in clear contrast the
<iifference between the true and the false.

Digitized by

44

The Question Box.

As regards the question of fact, many of the
pagan miracles were based on poetic legends
related centuries after their occurrence, v. g.y
the myths of Greece and Rome, the miracles
of Buddha, etc.; while the miracles of Christ
are attested by authentic contemporaneous
documents. Again, the alleged wonders or
false religions are absurd, ridiculous, and
meaningless, being evidently framed to show
the great power of their author: v.g., the five
hundred white lions, and the dragon-harnessed
chariot of Buddha; the walking statues, or
flights through the air of Simon Magus ; the
moon-dividing of Mohammed. The miracles
of Christ, on the contrary, are never extrava-
gant or foolish, but consist of wonderful cures
and manifestations of divine power, to which
He could appeal as proof of His divine mis-
sion: " Though you will not believe me, be-
lieve the works ; that you may know and be-
lieve that the Father is in me, and I in the
Father " (John x. 38).

The perfect spotlessness of the life of Christ
is warrant for belief in these words. On no
other hypothesis can the miracles of Christ be
explained, save as works requiring divine
power; whereas the alleged wonders in the
false religions of Buddhism, Brahminism,
Greek and Roman paganism, or in modern
spiritism, theosophy, Christian Science, and

Digitized by

The Gospels. 45

Dowieism, can be traced either to fraud, hallu-
cination, hypnotic suggestion, or diabolism.
(Jaugey, "Diet. Apol.," 2088, 2116; New-
man, "Essay on Miracles,* 9 i. sec. 3).

THE GOSPELS.

Your account of Christ rests on the four gos-
pels. How are we sure to-day that they are
genuine history ? They may have been written
long after the events they record ; or, again,
what guarantee is there that we have the origi-
nal statement of Christianity after so many
years?

It is impossible for us to discuss in a few
words the genuinity or authenticity of the four
gospels. No clear-headed man, however, can
in conscience reject them after he has carefully
studied the question. We merely outline some
of the chief arguments.

1 st. The four gospels are quoted verbatim or
in paraphrase by writers of the first three cen-
turies, viz.: Pope Clement of Rome (96 a. d.),'
the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (80-120),
the Epistle of Barnabas (120-130), Ignatius,
martyr (105-117), Polycarp (168), Papias
(125), Justin (160), Tatian (170), The Mura-
torian Fragment (190-210), Irenaeus (177),

Digitized by

46

The Question Box.

Tertullian (199), Clement of Alexandria (192),
Origen (230), etc.

2d. The early enemies of Christianity — the
Jew, the heretic, and the pagan — although
they ridiculed and perverted the gospels, never
dreamt of denying their genuinity, for they
realized the utter impossibility of so futile an
argument gaining credence.

3d. Another witness is the number of apocry-
phal gospels written by heretics to spread their
false doctrines, or by the orthodox as pious
forgeries to complete the gospel narrative.
Their very existence testifies to the four gos-
pels, as a counterfeit coin evidences the exist-
ence of a true original.

4th. The very fact that the four gospels were
universally accepted in the fourth century by
the Fathers — men tenacious of tradition and
haters of every novelty of doctrine — points con-
clusively to their genuineness. Considering,
too, their great love and reverence of the Scrip-
tures, no writer, no matter how clever, could
foist a new gospel on them, [any more than a
history of the Revolution written to-day could
pass current with the American people as a
document of the eighteenth century.

5th. There was likewise no danger of the
gospels undergoing any substantial change.
The gospels were known and read in all the
churches, copies and versions were being con-

Digitized by

The Gospels. 47

tinually made, the early teachers of Chris-
tianity quoted them frequently from their pul-
pits and in their writings ; any change would
instantly he met by a mighty protest from both
pastors and people, as we see in the case of the
heretical and Jewish perversions of the Sacred
Scriptures.

6th. Some unbelievers have accused the gos-
pel writers of ignorance, superstition, fanati-
cism, and even deliberate fraud, the better to
controvert their testimony. But an earnest,
sincere student of the gospels will find, an the
contrary, that they were men of truth who re-
lated what they themselves had seen and heard
(I. John i. 1-3; II. Pet. i. 6); they told of
miracles performed and doctrines preached pub-
licly before unbelievers (John xviii. 20, 21),
which none dared gainsay ; they had no possi-
ble motive for deception, for they went counter
to the current Jewish and pagan ideas and
knew that they would meet persecution and
death ; they won many converts and helped in
the foundation of a religion which stands
unique in the world by its sublime doctrine of
faith and morality. No explanation will ac-
count for the fact save that they were true
speakers sent by God.

Digitized by

48

The Question Box.

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

Is it not incredible that God should become
man?

What proofs are there that Jesus Christ was
the Son of God?

May not the texts in which Christ speaks of
unity with the Father imply only the moral
unity of an adopted sonship?

Cannot a man reverence Jesus as the highest
and most perfect type of the race without ac-
knowledging Him to be divine? I believe that
men should strive more to live Christ's life than
to discuss the dogma of His divinity.

" We need to appreciate that the doctrine
of the Incarnation is not a hard one to ac-
cept. There is no revolt in the natural mind
against the thought of God becoming man.
It is not a thought which arouses aversion in
us. Indeed, we give it welcome. That man
should be raised to a participation in the di-
vine nature is a difficult thing to understand, if
the word is meant to imply a full and clear
comprehension. But the human race or any
part of it has never felt it to be incredible.
. . . The dignity of man suggests the pos-
sibility of the Incarnation ; the aspirations of
man suggest its probability; the degradation
of man cries out for it, and implores its im-

Digitized by

The Divinity of Christ. 49

mediate gift " (Elliott, " Life of Christ, M Epi-
logue, pp. i.-vii.)

The divinity of Christ is the foundation-
doctrine of the Christian religion. Deny Him
as the Son of God^ and at once the whole fab-
ric of revelation falls to pieces; confess Him
to be divine, and the logical mind grasps at
once the necessity of a divine, infallible teacher
in the world to-day, speaking in His name
and with His authority.

The arguments for the divinity of Christ are :

1st. Throughout the four gospels Christ
clearly asserts His divinity.

He claims perfect equality with the Father —
the Jehovah of the Jews — in absolute oneness
of essence (" I and the Father are one." —
John x. 30), in parity of working power (" My
Father worketh until now, and I work." — John
v. 17; "What things soever the Father doth,
these the Son also doth in like manner. —
v. 19), in eternal Being (" Before Abraham
was made, I am." — John viii. 58), in the equal
right to the homage of mankind ("That all
may honor the Son as they honor the Fath-
er."— John v. 23; cf. xiv. 1, 13; xv. 10;
Matt. x. 37).

It is evident that our I^ord, in John x. 30,
spoke of His absolute, essential oneness with
the Father because He " was addressing earn-
est monotheists, keenly alive to the essential

Digitized by

5o

The Question Box.

distinction between the life of the Creator and
the life of the creature, and religiously jealous
of the divine prerogatives. The Jews did not
understand Christ's claim to be one with the
Father in any moral, spiritual, or mystical
sense. Christ did not encourage them so to
understand it. The motive of their indigna-
tion (" we stone Thee for blasphemy, because
that Thou, being a man, maketh Thyself
God." — John x. 33) was not disowned by Him.
They believed Him to mean that He was Him-
self a divine Person ; and He never repudi-
ated that construction of His language " (Lid-
don, " The Divinity of our Lord," Lecture iv. '
pp. 188-189). <

Again, the Jews evidently understood our
Saviour to claim a right to break the Sab-
bath as the Lord of the Sabbath, the equal
of Jehovah who had prescribed the law, and
for that reason they " sought the more to kill
Him, because He said God was His Father,
making Himself equal to God" (John v. 18).
A third time they stoned Him as a blas-
phem'er (John viii. 59), when He claimed to
be the "I am who am" of Israel (Exod. iii.
14), the eternal "Now."

Every one who studies the life of Christ
must admit that He was sincere (John vi. 26 ;
xiii. 38; xviii. 37), unselfish (John v. 30;
vi. 38; x. 11; Matt. xxvi. 39), and humble

Digitized by

The Divinity of Christ. 51

(IVuke viii. 51; Matt. ix. 30; Mark viii. 11;
Matt. xi. 29). But "is He, if He be not
God, really humble f Can Jesus bid us to be-
lieve in Him Qohn xiv. 1), love Him, obey
Him (John xv. 10), live by Him Qohn vi. 58),
live for Him (Matt. xvi. 24) ; can He thus
claim to be the universal Teacher (Matt, xxviii.
20) and the universal Judge (Matt. xxv. 31-
41), the Way, [the Truth, the I^ife of human-
ity Qohn xiv. 6), if He kbe indeed only man?
. . . If Jesus Christ be not God, is He
really unselfish f He bids men make Himself
the centre of their affections and their thoughts
Qohn xiv. 6, 14 ; xi. 25 ; xiv. 1 ; vi. 29 ; v. 23 ;
viii. 42; xv. 23; xiv. 15, etc.) ; and when God
does this, He is but recalling man to that
which is man's proper duty, to the true direc-
tion and law of man's being. But deny Christ's
divinity, and what will you say of the disin-
terestedness of His perpetual self-assertion?
• . . If Jesus Christ is not God, can we
even say that He is sincere? For if He is
not God, where does He make any adequate
repudiation of a construction of His words so
utterly derogatory to the great Creator, so
necessarily abhorrent to a good man's thought ?
. . . Would not a purely human Christ
have anticipated the burning words of the in-
dignant Apostle at the gate of Lystra ? ' ' (Acts
xiv. 14; Liddon, ibid., pp. 195-203).

Digitized by

52

The Question Box.

There can be no doubt that the Sanhedrin
condemned our Lord to death because He
claimed to be divine. Their words to Pilate
were : " We have a law ; and according to the
law (Lev. xxiv. 16 ; Deut. xiii. 5) He ought
to die, because He made Himself the Son of
God" (John xix. 7). The high-priest put
the question plainly to our Lord : " Art Thou
the Christ, the Son of the blessed God ? And
Jesus said to him, lam" (Mark xiv. 61, 62;
cf. Matt. xxvi. 64). This open claim of being
the Son of God in a real, true sense was styled
blasphemy, and sealed the death- sentence of
Jesus Christ.

2d. The Apostles clearly teach that Jesus is
God.

St. Peter, when questioned by Christ on
this very point, declares explicitly "Thou art
Christ, the Son of the Living God 99 (Matt,
xvi. 16), and our Lord in answer blesses him
for his profession of faith, and declares it in-
spired by His Heavenly Father. " Blessed art
thou, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood
hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father
who is in heaven* 9 (cf. John vi. 70; I. Pet.
i. 2 ; iv. 2 ; II. Pet. i. 1).

The unbelieving St. Thomas, convinced by
the fact of the resurrection, is forced to cry out
"My Lord and my God" (John xx. 28). St.
John wrote his whole gospel that men "may

Digitized by

The Divinity of Christ.

53

believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of
God " (John xx. 31), and in his opening
chapter he declares Jesus the only begotten
Son of God, eternal and consubstantial with
His Father (John i. 1-14; cf. I. John iv. 15;
v. 20). St. Paul writes clearly of Christ :
"Who being in the form of God, thought it
not robbery to be equal with God" (Phil. ii.
6), and in many other passages speaks of Him
as the eternal Son of. God, the Creator of all
things, etc. (Col. i. 15, 16; Rom. ix. 5; viii.
32; Heb. i. 1-14).

This public unanimous preaching of Christ's
divinity by the Apostles can be explained on
no other hypothesis than the positive revelation
of Jesus Christ their Master.

3d. TJie miracles which Jesus wrought in
His own name and by His own power prove
Him \o be God.

When Jesus found that His testimony was
gainsaid, He frequently appealed to the mira-
cles He wrought as setting the seal of the
divine approval upon His teachings, and His
claim of equality with the Father (Matt. xi. 4,
5; John v. 36; x. 38; xiv. 12). His life is
one series of miracles. He stills the storm
with a word (Mark iv. 39), He walks upon the
sea (Matt. xiv. 25), He feeds the multitudes
with a few loaves and fishes (John vi. 10), He
changes water into wine (John ii. 9), He drives

Digitized by

54

The Question Box.

out demons from the possessed (Mark i. 25;
Hi. 11; v. 8, etc.), He heals the blind, the
deaf, the dumb, the leper, and the paralytic
(Mark ix. 25 ; viii. 1-5 ; Luke v. 24), He
raises the dead to life (Matt. ix. 25; Luke
vu. 15 ; John xi. 44). He is transfigured be-
fore the Apostles (Mark ix. 3), He rises from
the dead, converses with the disciples for forty
days, and then ascends on high to His heavenly
Father (Matt, xxviii. ; Acts i. 9, etc.)

The saints and prophets work miracles also,
but they always do so in the name of God or
Christ Jesus. He alone performs them of Him-
self: 'M will, be thou made clean" (Matt,
viii. 3); "Do you believe that I can do this
unto you?" (Matt. ix. 28; cf. Luke vii. 14;
John xi. 44 ; Matt, viii. 5-13, etc.)

£he unbelievers of our day have striven to
give us a life of Jesus, while utterly denying
the historical reality of the miracles recorded of
Him. But "to expel miracles from the life of
Jesus is to destroy the identity of tne Christ
of the Gospels ; it is to substitute a new Christ
for the Christ of Christendom: . . . these
(rationalistic) commentators do not affect to
take the history as it has come down to us.
As the Gospel narratives stand, they present a
block of difficulties to Humanitarian theories ;
and these difficulties can only be removed by
mutilations of the narrative so wholesale and

Digitized by

!

The Divinity of Christ. 55

radical as to destroy their substantial interest,
besides rendering the retention of the fragments
which may be retained a purely arbitrary pro-
cedure/ '

In a word, miracleis are so interwoven with
the life of Christ, and so prominent a feature of
His daily teaching, that the "moral integrity
of our Lord's character is dependent, whether
we will or not, upon the reality of His mira-
cles,, (Iyiddon, ibid., pp. 161-163).

5th. Paspal considered the prophetical argu-
ment the strongest proof of Christ's divinity
(Pascal's " Thoughts," p. 128). Even among
the pagan nations there was a general expecta-
tion of a new revelation and a new teacher
from on high. The Old Testament in a series
of prophecies extending over thousands of years
announces all the details of, the life of Christ.
God promises a redeemer to Adam (Gen. iii.
15). He is to be of the stock of Abraham
(Gen. xii. 13), Isaac (xxvi. 4), Jacob (Gen.
xxviii. 14 ; Num. xxiv. 17), of the tribe of
Juda (Gen. xlviii. 8-10; cf Heb. vii. 14),
and of the family of David (Isa. ix. 7 ; ii.
1-7 ; cf. Rom. i. 3 ; II. Tim. ii. 8).

Moses declares that He will be a great
prophet (Deut. xviii. 15), Isaias foretells His
birth of a virgin mother (vii. 14) and His
power of miracles (xxxv. 4-6), Malachias tells
of His precursor (iii. 1 ; cf. Luke i. 76 ; iii. 2),

Digitized by

56

The Question Box.

Micheas marks the place and Daniel the time
of His coming (Mich. v. 2, 3 ; cf. Matt. ii. 1 ;
Luke ii. 4 ; Dan. ix. 24-27), Isaias declares
Him the prince of peace (ix. 6 ; cf. Luke ii.
14; John xiv. 27), foretells the place of His
preaching (ix. 1. 2; cf. Matt. iv. 15), and says
He will make a new covenant for the gentiles
(ii. 4; cf. Luke i. 3; Matt. xvi. 28 ; xxviii.
19; Mark xvi. 15); the Psalms (xxi. and
lxviii.), Isaias (liii.)> and Zacharias (xi. 12)
tell the minutest details of His passion and
death. (Maas, "Christ in Type and Pro-
phecy.")

5th. Christ's own power of prophecy proves
Him God.

He foretells His own death and resurrec-
tion (Matt. xii. 40; xvii. 21-22 ; xxvii. 63;
xx. 17-19; Luke xiii. 32; John ii. 19), the
treachery of Judas (John xiii. 26), the denial
of Peter and the manner of His death (Matt,
xxvi. 34; John xxi. 18-22), the destruction of
Jerusalem (Matt, xxiv.), the dispersion of the
Jews (Luke xxi. 24), and the spread of His
Church (John x. 16; Matt. xiii. 31).

6th. One of the most striking proofs of
Christ's divinity is His absolute sinlessness.
He proposes the highest standard of sanctity
possible: "Be you therefore perfect, as also
your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. v.
4.8) ; and instead of insisting on His own per-

Digitized by

The Divinity of Christ, 57

sonal unworthiness, as He must needs have
done were He only a great prophet like Isaias
(" I am a man of unclean lips," Isa. vi. 5), He,
on the contrary, challenges His enemies to find
in Him the slightest sin : " which of you shall
convince Me of sin?" (John viii. 46), and
declares that He always does His Father's will,
1 1 for I do always the things that please Him "
(John viii. 29; Bougaud, ' 'The Divinity of
Jesus Christ," ch. iv.; Wddon, /. c, p. 165-
168).

7th. The sublime teachings of the Saviour,
together with the wonderful spread of His
Church by the simplest methods against the
mightiest enemies, the transformation of the
world from the lust, pride, cruelty, and idola-
try of paganism to the Christian purity, humil-
ity, gentleness, love of God and the brethren
for God's sake, prove that the Worker of this
change was not human but divine.

8th. " If Christ be not divine, actually God,
then the supreme Ruler of men's souls has
failed both in His messenger and His message,
and failed fatally. Christ was sent to eradi-
cate idolatry, which had proven to be the
.deepest seated evil of humanity, and to estab-
lish impregnably the very opposite, the knowl-
edge and worship of the true God. The light-
est belief in Divine Providence identifies its
rulings in this sense with Christ and His mis-

Digitized by

58

The Question Box.

sion, and they resulted in universal Christ- wor-
shipo ... If Christ be not God, He is the
author of the most obstinate idolatry ever
known. No teaching so awfully authoritative
as His, no life so irresistibly attractive, no
death so solemn and so triumphant. Has the
only result been idolatry ? " (Elliott, " Life of
Christ/' Epilogue, xv. xvii.)

Men cannot remain indifferent to this doc-
trine, for it is fraught with mighty conse-
quences here and hereafter. This world takes
on another aspect to the man who knows
that God has deigned to honor it by living
here for a time, and to exalt human nature by
making it His very, own. You cannot do away
with Christ's divinity and pretend to follow out
His teaching. If He be only man, His power
to command is subject to the caprice of every
individual. If He is God, then it follows
naturally that His doctrines must be believed
under penalty of damnation (Mark xvi. 16),
and His commandments obeyed under penalty
of hell. Logically, also, there must be in the
world to-day a teacher of His gospel, divine as
He was divine, infallible as He was infallible,
voicing His gospel to all men unto the end
(Matt, xxviii. 20 ; Acts i. 8) ; an authority of
which He said: "He that heareth you hear-
eth Me" (Luke x. 16; Fouard, "Life of
Christ"; Didon, "Life of Christ" ; Lacor-

Digitized by

The Divinity of Christ.

59

daire, "Conferences on Jesus Christ"; Ni-
colas, "The Divinity of Christ"; Freppel,
"Discourses on the Divinity of Christ.")

If Christ performed the miracles recorded in
the New Testament, why then did the Jews put
Him to death?

This difficulty is thus answered by Father
Lambert :

" The argument of this question is, that be-
cause the Jews put Christ to death, they did
not believe in His miracles as recorded in the
Gospels. But this conclusion is false. The
Jews believed that God had forbidden them to
abandon the law of Moses, even if a prophet
performing miracles required them to do so.
From the time of Christ down to the present
the Jews have always and uniformly believed
in the reality of the miracles of Christ. If you
do not believe this, consult their Talmuds.

" Well, then, you will ask, if they admitted
the fact of His miracles, why did they not
accept Him as the Messias? While they ad-
mitted the miracles, they did not believe that
they proved Him to be the Messias. Their
prophets had performed miracles under the
Mosaic law. They had even raised the dead.
The Jews in the time of Christ could not under-
stand how miracles could be worked to abro-
gate that law. Fixed habits and prejudices,

Digitized by

6o

The Question Box,

then, caused them to reject the evidence of His
miracles, while they admitted the fact of them.
They attributed them to Beelzebub.

" Again, they believe that the promised Son
of David was to be a great temporal prince,
that He was to free the Jewish people, and
establish a great Jewish empire, restore the
Jewish nobility, and raise the Aaronic priest-
hood to its ancient pre-eminence and glory.
His preaching and humble life gave no encour-
agement to these hopes, and they refused to
believe in Him as the promised Messias, even
while they admitted His miracles. And they
put Him to death as they had put to death their
acknowledged prophets " (Lambert, " Notes on
Ingersoll,,, chap. xvi. pp. 1 40-141).

THE INCARNATION AND REDEMPTION.

What does the Catholic Church teach concern-
ing the Incarnation?

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus
Christ is both God and man — the eternal, only
begotten Son of the Eternal Father, who be-
came flesh and dwelt among us (John i. 14).

In Jesus Christ there are two natures, the
divine and the human, perfectly distinct from
each other, and yet forming but one divine per-
sonality. _The Athanasian Creed declares that

Digitized by

The Incarnation and Redemption, 61

Jesus is " God of the substance of the Father,
born before all ages, and man of the substance
of His mother, born in time. Perfect God and
perfect man, subsisting of a rational soul and
human body. Equal to the Father, according
to His divinity ; less than the Father, accord-
ing to His humanity. . . . One not by the
changing of the divinity into flesh, but by the
assumption of the humanity unto God. One
not by the confounding of substance, but by
the unity of person. For as the rational soul
and the body is one man, so God and man is
one Christ.,,

" Just as one may point out a man, and say
of him, 'This is my brother' or 'my friend,'
so we can say of fjesus Christ, 1 This is the
Eternal God, Creator of heaven and earth,
my Master, my Judge, my everlasting Hope.
. . . His humanity is no fiction. His body
is a real true body, born of Mary, ever Virgin,
pierced on the Cross, sitting now at the right
hand of God. . . . He has a human soul,
united to His flesh like our souls are to our
flesh. . . . The two natures were each the
nature of one and the same Person ; and what
each nature did the Person did ; what each
nature was the Person was.

" God was made man, and was man. A
man was God. ... It was not the hu-
manity which created all things, it was not the

Digitized byLjOOQle

62

The Question Box.

Godhead which was nailed to the cross; but
the Person to < whom both belonged did the
wne and suffered the other, and the Person was
Jesus Christ* ' (Bishop Hedley, "Our Divine
Saviour and other Discourses/ ' Sermon I.)

What is the Catholic doctrine of the redemp-
tion?

The Church has defined that "Christ is
the mediating cause of salvation, inasmuch as
through His death, as a sin-oftering, He has
merited our salvation, and making satisfaction
for us to God, has blotted out sin. In other
words, His merits and satisfaction, as being
those of our Representative and Mediator,-
have obtained for us salvation from God."
. . . "The Council of Trent several times
insists upon the merits of the Mediator: e.
by the merit of the one Mediator original sin
is taken away (Sess. V. can. iii.) ; the merit-
ing cause of our justification is Christ, who
for us made satisfaction to God, the Father"
(Sess. VI. ch. vii.) (Wilhelm-Scannell, "A
Manual of Catholic Theology," vol, ii. p. 183;
cf. z&zd.yp. 181-207; Oxenham, "The Atone-
ment.")

Why should God punish His innocent Son for
the guilt of men?

"In the economy of salvation the sinner is

Digitized by

The Bible.

63

bound to give personal satisfaction ; if he does
not, his lot is damnation. Christ was not
punished instead of the sinner, nor against
His own will as sinners are punished ; by the
holiest of free acts He bore the penalties of
sin in order to merit for the sinner a means
of satisfying which lay beyond human power.
His vicarious satisfaction is not the transfer of
punishment from the unjust to the just, but
the transfer of the merits of the just to the
unjust" (Wilhelm-Scannell, " A Manual of
Catholic Theology vol. ii. p. 188.)

THE BIBLE.

Is not the Bible an all-sufficient guide to the
truths taught by the Saviour?

Is it not better to trust an infallible, divine
book for the gospel teaching, than the mere tra-
ditions, of men?

I will accept none of your teachings unless you
give me Bible proof. Where in the Bible do you
find, etc.

Is not the meaning of the Bible evident to any
Christian who reads it devoutly?

The Reformers of the sixteenth century de-
clared that the Bible only, understood accord-
ing to an individual's private judgment, was
the complete source and organ of revealed

Digitized by

64

The Question Box.

truth for man's salvation. They had denied
the divine, infallible authority established by
Jesus Christ, and so, in words at least, en-
deavored to substitute an authority equally
divine and infallible.

Catholics, on the contrary, hold with St.
Paul, that " faith cometh" not by reading,
but " by hearing " (Rom. x. 17) ; that the gos-
pel of Christ is to be learned from a divine,
infallible living voice — the Catholic Church,
which guarantees to every one not merely the
unwritten word, but also the unwritten teach-
ing of divine tradition (II. Thess. ii. 13, 14).

Let us not mistake the point at issue.
Many write and talk as if there were ques- '
tion of the dignity or sacred character of the
Bible ; as if, forsooth, Protestantism had for
the first time given it its due place of honor.

But history is the witness how well the
Catholic Church has ever defended the in-
tegrity, historical value, canonicity, and in-
spiration of the Scriptures, and their help- .
fulness and worth to the Christian people. The
real question is: Is the Bible and the Bible
alone the way to find out the gospel of Christ ?

The Catholic answers this question in a de-
cided negative; for, 1st. If this fundamental
principle of Protestantism were true, the Bible
should record it somewhere. On the contrary,
there is not one text in the Old Testament

Digitized by

The Bible,

65

or the New which declares any such prin-
ciple.

2d. Let us ask whether Protestantism has
been consistent? As a matter of fact, how
many Protestants have learned the doctrines
of Christ by independent Bible-reading? In-
deed, from the very beginning, in the endeavor
to save themselves from the inevitable destruc-
tion that follows every protest against divine
truth, they have gone directly counter to their
first principle, and have trusted to human
creeds, confessions, catechisms, teachings from
the pulpit and lessons in the Bible class. Each
denomination has drawn up its own interpre-
tation of the Bible, emphasizing some texts
and utterly ignoring others, and has made the
acceptance of this human, fallible interpreta-
tion a condition of church-membership.

3d. It is only by the divine authority of
the Catholic Church that Christians know that
the Scripture is the Word of God, and what
books certainly belong to the Bible.

The Bible was not written in English. How
can a Protestant of to-day — learned or ignorant
— know whether his version is a correct trans-
lation, or a human travesty of God's word?

The Bible nowhere points out the number of
books on the canon, and critical arguments can
never afford the divine certainty that rational
men demand before believing with divine faith.

Digitized by

66

The Question Box.

The Protestant starts with the unproved as-
sumption that the Bible is the inspired word
of God. How, we ask, independently of a
divine authority outside the Bible, can any one
prove the internal, supernatural fact of divine
inspiration ?

In a word, the Bible is not its own witness.
It is like a will without a signature or probate.
Especially in our own day, when the modern
Higher Criticism has made sad havoc with the
old Protestant estimate of the Bible. Deny the
Church's infallible witness, and lo! the Bible
is reduced to the level ot mere Oriental litera-
ture, full of errors and utterly devoid of divine
inspiration. The Catholic Church alone guar-
antees infallibly the authenticity of the Latin
Vulgate, the contents of the Canon, and the
inspiration of all the seventy-two books of
Holy Writ.

The Catholic Church gives the world the
Bible, so that St. Augustine could rightly
say in the fifth century: "I would not be-
lieve the gospel unless moved thereto by
the authority of the Church" (' ' Contra Epis.
Fund.")

4th. The Bible does not pretend to be a for-
mulary of belief, as is a creed or catechism.
There is nowhere in the New Testament a
clear, methodical statement of the teachings
of Christ. It was never intended as such.

Digitized by

The Bible.

67

The Epistles of St. Paul, for instance, were
written as occasion arose to different local
Churches, to settle disputes about dogma, to
insist on certain Christian principles of moral-
ity, to protest against pagan philosophy and
pagan crimes, and to warn the first converts
against Judaizers.

The Bible was never intended to take the
place of the living, infallible teacher, the
Church, but was written to explain or to insist
upon a doctrine already preached.

How indeed could a dead and speechless
book, that cannot be cross-questioned to settle
doubts or decide controversies, be the exclu-
sive and all-sufficient teacher of God's revela-
tion.

5th. The very nature of the Bible ought to
prove to any thinking man the impossibility
of its being the one safe method to find out
what the Saviour taught. It is not a simple,
clear-as-crystal volume that a little child may
understand, although it ought to be so on
Protestant principles. Luther declared that
any one could understand the Bible — as long
as his own interpretation was unquestioned
(Wittenb. Opera, vol. ii. p. 474, a.d. 1539),
but once his authority was set aside by his
own followers, the Bible became a most diffi-
cult book! (Walch, vol. v., 1652, 472, xiv.
1360; De Wette, iii. 61 ; Tischr. ii. c. 5, § 46;

Digitized by

68

The Question Box.

J. Verres, " Luther: An Historical Portrait,"
p. iii., et seq.)

St. Peter speaks of the difficulties one meets
with, especially in the epistles of St. Paul,
" in which are certain things hard to be under-
stood ; which the unlearned and unstable wrest,
as they do also the other scriptures, to their
own destruction " (II. Pet. iii. 16).

Again, the Acts of the Apostles testify to
the obscurity of that passage in Isaias (liii. 7, 8}
which the eunuch of Queen Candace could not
understand until Philip assured him that it re-
ferred to the Passion of Jesus Christ, the Son
of God: "Thinkest thou that thou under-
standest what thou readest? Who said: And
how can I, unless some man show me?" (Acts
viii. 30, 31),

Indeed, when one reflects for a moment what
the Bible is — a number of sublime, mysteri-
ous books, written thousands of years ago by
men of a different civilization and tongue ; and
especially when one knows that it deals with
God's revelation of doctrine and morals to His
people, he must needs expect to find " things
hard to be understood.' '

Many questions face the reader of the New
Testament, and demand a divine authoritative
answer, if men are to know with certainty the
gospel of Christ. Is this a counsel or a com-
mandment ? (John xiii. 14.) Is this passage life-

Digitized by

The Bible

69

eral or figurative ? (Johnvi.; Matt. xxvi. 26.)
Has an apostolic priesthood the pardoning
power? (John xx. 23.) Is Christ the Son of
God? (John xiv. 28), etc.

If the Scriptures were so clear, why then did
the principle of private interpretation bring
forth so many denominations, each claiming to
know the true meaning of God's word ?

If Jesus had promised the wonderful gift of
divine insight to every individual, as some have
arbitrarily pretended, well and good. But
there is not the slightest evidence of any such
promise. On the contrary, the contradictions
of the various human societies in the world to-
day absolutely point to their origin, — man's
private and fallible opinion, and not to the in-
fallible guidance of the Holy Spirit of Truth.

The Bible is not so much printer's ink and
paper; not the ignorance, errors, and preju-
dices of men read into the Old or New Testa-
ment ; not a babel of discordant opinions as to
what Christ our Lord meant; but the one di-
vine, infallible voice of God to his people,
known with divine, infallible certainty to every
creature by the divine interpreter and custo-
dian of Holy Writ — the one Church of Jesus
Christ.

6th. Is it not strange that if Christianity
were to be learned from the Bible only, that
Christ Himself never wrote a line, nor ever

Digitized by

" ]

70 The Question Box.

commanded His Apostles to write. Only five
of the twelve did write ; for their divine commis-
sion was not to write, but to preach and teach
the gospel (Matt, xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15;
Iyuke x. 16 ; Acts i. 8). They wrote merely to
confirm their teaching, never giving the slight-
est intimation that Christianity was to rest
solely on a Bible foundation.

7th. Historically, we are certain that the
Bible has never been the way to find out
Christ.

For just as the Jewish religion existed before
the Old Testament, so the Christian religion
existed before a line of the New Testament
was written. The Church came first and not
the Bible, and there is not the slightest evi-
dence to show the substitution, in later times,
of a dead book for the living voice of Christ's
Church.

8th. Again, it has ever been practically im-
possible for men, generally, to find out Christ
from the Bible only. In the first days of
Christianity the poverty and illiteracy of the
primitive Christians (I. Cor. i. 26-28), the con-
tinued pagan persecutions, the rarity of manu-
scripts, the doubts existing about the canon
until the end of the fourth century, the spread
of apocryphal and heretical versions, — prove to
evidence that they learned, as Christ and His
Apostles declared all Christians must learn, not

Digitized by

The Bible,

n

from a book they did not possess, not from a
book they could not read, but from the voice
of a divine, infallible teaching authority.

Indeed, it is as futile to speak of 1 ' Bible
Christians" in the days of primitive Chris-
tianity, when men died for Christ by the thou-
sands, as to speak of the Emperor Nero or
Decius travelling about in a Pullman palace
car, their families going down the Appian Way
in an automobile, their generals using smoke-
less powder, Maxim guns, or Mauser bullets*
or their ministers reading telegraphic de-
spatches from all parts of the Empire. Let us
not picture the Roman Christian of the third
century with a ninety-eight-cent edition of the
Protestant Bible.

What, again, of the millions of Christians
all down the centuries who possessed no copies
of the Scriptures, or who could not read them,
or understand them, if they did ? What of the
illiterates of our own day? — when, as W. S.
Lilly says, " the average man is as well fitted to
interpret the Bible as he is to lecture on the
Hegelian philosophy, or to settle fine points of
Hindu law."

9th. Finally, if the Bible were the only way
to find out Christ, individual Bible reading
should of itself have tended to maintain and
spread Christianity. Surely candid men must
admit that it has not done so.

Digitized by

72

The Question Box.

"The divisions of modern sects afford a
strong argument,1 ' writes Palmer (Protestant),
"for the necessity of submission to the judg-
ment of the universal Church ; for surely it is
impossible that Christ could have designed His
disciples to break into a hundred different sects
contending with each other on every doctrine
of religion. It is impossible, I say, that this
system of endless division can be Christian. It
cannot but be the result of some deep rooted,
some universal error, some radically false prin-
ciple, which is common to all these sects.
And what principle do they hold in common
except the right of each individual to oppose
his judgment to that of all the Church? The
principle, then, must be utterly false and un-
founded" ("The Church," vol. ii. p. 85).

Luther bears witness to the destructive char-
acter of his principle of private judgment in
his own day : " This one will not hear of bap-
tism, that one denies the sacrament, another
puts a world between this and the last day;
some teach that Christ is not God ; some say
this, some say that ; there are about as many
sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel
is so rude but when he has dreams and fan-
cies he thinks himself inspired by the Holy
Ghost, and must be a prophet" (De Wette,
vol. iii. p. 61).

Catholics of the sixteenth century prophesied

Digitized by

The Bible,

73

the result, and any student of twentieth cen-
tury Protestantism will acknowledge they were
right. Men have appealed to the Bible to
justify every denial of Christian teaching, until
in our own day the descendants of Luther are
either indifferentists, or utter unbelievers. The
orthodox Protestant to-day finds himself power-
less before the onslaught of the modern de*
structive rationalistic Higher -Criticism, and is
inevitably drifting either toward Rome or Ra-
tionalism.

You teach that we must find out the teachings
of Jesus from the Church. Did He not say:
" Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye
have eternal life, and they are they which testify
of me"? (John v. 39) •

These words of our Lord by no means imply
an obligation on all men to read the Bible in
order to find out His teaching. He was speak-
ing to the unbelieving doctors of the law,
whom neither His words nor works had con-
vinced. They were well versed in the Old
Testament — not a word of the New Testa-
ment was written — and held it as the word
of God. Christ tells them, therefore, to read
carefully those passages of the Old Testament
that testify of Him as the promised Messias,
Thus Catholics say to Protestants to-day : Read
carefully those passages of the New Testament

Digitized by

74

The Question Box.

that declare the Catholic Church the divine,
infallible teacher of Christ's revelation.

The argument of Protestants from this text,
if clearly understood, is evidently unsound.
It runs thus : Christ told the Jews to search
the Old Testament for proofs of His Messianic
mission. Therefore, the New Testament is to
be searched in order to find out all He taught !
This is logic with a vengeance.

Did not the Bible praise the Bereans for their
study of the Bible (Acts xvii. n), " searched the
Scriptures daily, whether those things were
so"?

"This earnest toil of the Bereans was evi-
dently one of verification, not one of construc-
tion. They did not think to find the truth by
reading Scripture without note or comment, and
building up each for himself a system of faith,
morals, and worship. They went to the Scrip-
tures full of what they had just heard. They
searched diligently to see whether matters
really stood as St. Paul had represented them
in his sermon, whether he had quoted the
Scriptures correctly, and whether the inter-
pretation he had given was a plausible, a
probable, a convincing one" (Bridgett, "The
Ritual of the New Testament,' ' p. 13).

Digitized by

Divine Tradition.

75

DIVINE TRADITION.

By what right do you teach doctrines not
found in the Bible? Does not this put the
Church above the word of God ? Did not Christ
rebuke the Pharisees for " teaching doctrines and
commandments of men" (Matt. , xv. 9) and
" making void the word of God by your own
tradition"? (Markvii. 13).

Because the origin of our faith is not the
Bible alone, but the Church which gives us
both the written and the unwritten word. St.
Paul speaks of "traditions learned by word
and by epistle* ' (II. Thess. ii. 14). Christ
rebuked the Pharisees for setting up their own
views, viz., regarding the Sabbath, as part of
the divine revelation. Still the Jews held by
divine tradition many truths that were not set
forth in the Scriptures, v. g.y the canon and
inspiration of the Old Testament.

So in the New Law, Catholics believe some
things not in the Scriptures, although wholly
in accord with them, because of the infallible
witness of the Church as to their divine or
apostolic origin. Why do Protestants accept
the Scriptures as inspired ? Why do they
honor the first day of the week instead of
the seventh ? Why do they baptize children ?
Contrary to their principles, they must look
outside the Bible to the voice of tradition,

Digitized by

76

The Question Box.

which is not human, but divine, because guar-
anteed by the divine, infallible witness of the
Catholic Church.

Why are there more books in your Bible than
in ours? Why do Catholics consider the Apoc-
rypha as Scripture ? Why don't all Christians
have the same number of books in their Bible ?

Catholics are infallibly certain that all the
books of their Bible are inspired, because of
the divine, infallible witness of the Church of
Jesus Christ, voiced by the Councils of Trent
(I545-^5) and the Vatican (1869-70). Protest*
ants, lacking this divine, infallible teacher,
can never be certain what books form the
canon of Holy Scripture.

The Hebrew canon of the Palestinian Jews
differed from that of the Greek Septuagint of
the Alexandrian Jews, which contained in ad-
dition the books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I. and II. Machabees.
With regard to the New Testament, the early
Christians greatly doubted as to the canonicity
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, II. Peter, II.
and III. John, St. James, St. Jude, and the
Apocalypse.

Other books, now reckoned by the Catholic
Church as apocrypha, were read in the early
Christian churches, and deemed by many a
part of Holy Writ; v. g.y the Epistle of Bar-

Digitized by

Divine Tradition.

77

nabas, the Shepherd of Hennas, the Epistles
of Clement.

Airiid this great doubt and uncertainty re-
garding the sacred canon, the Catholic has
the only way of attaining certainty — the in-
fallible voice of the divine authority estab-
lished by Christ, 'The Protestant, on the other
hand, is totally at loss, for he has no standard
of judging. So, inconsistently, he rejects the
seven doubtful books of the Old Testament,
and accepts the seven doubtful books of the
New. Is this reasonable?

Remember, too, that the Council of Trent
merely repeated the same list of canonical
books enumerated as early as the fourth cen-
tury in the Council of Hippo (a.d. 393) and the
two Councils of Carthage (a.d. 397 and 419).

Is it not strange that if the Septuagint ver-
sion enumerated books not belonging to the
canon, Christ and His Apostles should have
continually cited it ? For some 300 out of the
350 quotations from the Old Testament found
in the New are taken from the Greek of this
version, which contained all the books of the
Catholic Bible of to-day.

In the sixteenth century Luther, on the
Protestant principle of private judgment, re-
jected the Epistle of St. James as "a straw-
epistle/ 9 and said of the Apocalypse : " I find
many things defective in this book, which make

Digitized by

78

The Question Box.

me consider it neither Apostolic nor prophetic ' '
(Introduction to the New Testament of 1522 ;
cf. J. Verres, "Luther," p. 113).

To-day the rationalistic descendants of Lu-
ther claim the same right of private judgment
to reject not merely one or seven books, but the
entire canon of the Old and New Testament,
denying its divine inspiration, and put the
Bible on the level of mere Oriental literature.
Protestantism has no rational, certain argument
whereby to defend its canon. (" Canon of the
New Testament,' * Dublin Review, Oct., 1893;
T. Mullen, * * Canon of the Old Testament ";
Gigot, " General Introduction to Holy Scrip-
ture " ; Loisy, " Histoire du Canon de PAncien
Testament"; Loisy, "Histoire du Canon de
Nouveau Testament"; Vigoroux, " Diction-
naire de la Bible.")

What do Catholics mean by the inspiration of
the Scriptures? Must Catholics believe that
God inspired every word?

* ' Biblical inspiration may be described as a
divine and positive influence exerted upon
certain men for the purpose of transmitting
truth to others, and in such a manner that the
books composed by the sacred writers have
God for their author" (Gigot, "Biblical Lec-
tures," p. 351).

Catholics believe that " the books of the Old

Digitized by

Divine Tradition. 79

and the New Testament are to be received as
sacred and canonical, in their integrity, and
with all their parts, as they are enumerated in
the decrees of the said Council (Trent), and
are contained in the ancient Latin edition of
the Vulgate, . . . because, having been
written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,
they have God for their author" (Vatican,
Sess. III. ch. ii.) The Bible is, therefore, in-
spired not merely because it contains the Word
of God, but because it is in a true sense the
Word of God.

As regards God's share in the production
of the Scriptures, Cardinal Manning writes:
" Inspiration, in the special and technical
sense, includes the three following operations
of the Holy Ghost upon the sacred writers : (1)
the impulse to put in writing the matter which
God wills they should record; (2) the sug-
gestion of the matter to be written, whether by
revelation of truths not previously known, or
only by the promptings of those things which
were within the writer's knowledge ; (3) the
assistance which excludes liability to error in
writing all things, whatever may be suggested
to them by the Spirit of God, to be written' '
(" The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost,"
p. 161).

As regards man's share in the production of
Holy Writ, Catholics believe that, ' 'though

Digitized by

8o

The Question Box,

acting as co-agents under God's special in-
fluence, the inspired writers are no mere pas-
sive instruments, but bear themselves under
the divine action as truly intelligent, active,
and free agents" (Gigot, "General Introduc-
tion to the Holy Scriptures,' ' p. 546). The
sacred writers may have been unaware of the
fact of their inspiration, they may commit to
writing what they already know from personal
knowledge, pre-existing documents, eye-wit-
nesses, and other aids (Luke i. 3 ; John xix.
35 ; II. Mach. ii. 27) ; their literary style and
wording may be their own (II. Mach. xv.
39, 40) ; hence verbal variances between in-
spired writers (Matt. v. 3 ; Luke vi. 20 ; Matt,
xxvi. 26; Luke xxii. 19; Mark xiv. 22, and
I. Cor. xi. 23). The dictation, therefore, of
each word — verbal inspiration — is by no means
essential to a true notion of inspiration
(Schanz, "A Christian Apology," vol. i. ch.
xiii.)

How do you know what are the inspired books
of Scripture?

By the divine, infallible testimony of the true
Church of God, which is the only completely
adequate and rational ground for a divine faith
in all the Sacred Scriptures. "As the in-
spiration of the sacred books is a divine opera-
tion not necessarily known even to the mind

Digitized by

Divine Tradition.

81

that is acted upon by the Holy Spirit, it neces-
sarily follows that the testimony of God Him-
self is required to make men perfectly sure of
its existence ; but thi£ divine testimony comes
to their knowledge, and is the absolute ground
of their faith, only by the voice of that in-
fallible and living Church which He has com-
manded us to hear" (Gigot, "Biblical Lec-
tures/ ' p. 368; Wiseman, "Doctrines and
Practices of the Catholic Church," Lec-
ture II.)

Protestants, rejecting the divine] authority of
the living voice of God's Church, generally
fall back upon intrinsic proofs for inspiration,
namely, the superhuman structure and con-
tents of the sacred books, their inspiring and
elevating character, their organic unity, their
moral effect upon the earnest reader, and the
like. Other Protestants, realizing the inade-
quacy of these merely internal criteria, appeal
to the authority of Christ and the Apostles ;
but they, fail to see that our Lord's testimony,
given previous to the writing of the book, —
which he nowhere directed to be written or
even named or suggested, — cannot be made to
apply to the New Testament; and that al-
though an argument may be deduced from the
fact that a book was written by an Apostle,
still such reasoning will not apply to all the
books of the New Testament ; for instance, the

Digitized by

82

The Question Box.

Acts, the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke,
etc. (Gigot, ibid., pp. 355"368)-

No wonder, then, that Protestantism with its
vague and varying views regarding inspiration,
its narrowing of inspiration to certain parts of
the Bible, its admission of error in the sacred
writings, its inadequate proofs for the fact of
inspiration and the right of a book to be on the
canon, is powerless to resist the attacks of the
rationalistic Higher Criticism, which endeavors
to strip the Word of God of its divine char-
acter. Many lovers of the Bible have come
to recognize the Catholic Church as its only
adequate and rational defender. No matter
what difficulties may be raised by the unbe-
liever against the inspiration of the Scriptures,
Catholics can always ground their certain faith
in them on the infallible authority of God's
Church. It is the old argument of St. Augus-
tine : " I would not believe the Gospel, unless
the authority of the Church moved me there-
to." (Gigot, * * General Introduction to the
Scriptures," ; Breen, " Introduction to the
Study of Holy Scripture.")

Why does the Catholic Church withhold the
Bible from the laity?

Why are Catholics forbidden to read the Bible ?

Why are not Catholics allowed to read the
Protestant Bible ?

Digitized by

Divine Tradition.

83

Did not the Scriptures practically perish in the
dark ages owing to the disregard of the clergy
for the pure word of God?

Was not Luther the first to translate the Bible
into the language of the people?

It is a calumny arising from ignorance or
malice to declare the Catholic Church was ever
an enemy to the devout reading of the Word
of God.

In the Middle Ages the monks and nuns
copied out the Bible word for word from Gene-
sis to the Apocalypse, the clergy preached from
it continually, lectured on it in their schools and
universities, and often prepared from its pages
special prayer-books for the people. " There
is a good deal of popular misapprehension about
the way in which the Bible was regarded in
the Middle Ages," writes Dr. Cutts (Prot-
estant; " Turning Points of English History,"
p. 200). Some people think that it was very
little read, even by the clergy ; whereas the fact
is that the sermons of the mediaeval preachers
are more full of Scriptural quotations and allu-
sions than any sermons in these days; and
the writers on other subjects are so full of
Scriptural allusion that it is evident their
minds were saturated with Scriptural diction.
We have the authority of Sir Thomas More
("Dial." iii. 14) for saying that "the whole
Bible was, long before Wyclifs days, by vir-

Digitized by

-84

The Question Box.

tuous and well-learned men translated into the
English tongue, and by good and goodly peo-
ple with devotion and soberness well and rever-
ently-read."

Dean Maitland (Protestant) shows clearly'the
reverence of the Middle Ages for God's holy
Book ("The Dark Ages," pp. 208-241), and
answering the calumnies of certain anti-Catho-
lic controversialists, says: " I do not recollect
any instance in which it is recorded that the
Scriptures, or any part of them, were treated
with indignity, or with less than profound re-
spect."

"The notion that the people in the Middle
Ages," writes another fair-minded Protestant,
' ' did not read their Bibles ... is not simply
a mistake ; it is one of the most ludicrous and
grotesque blunders " {Church Quartet ly Review \
Oct., 1879).

Another strange bit of old-time contro-
versy is the pretended discovery by Luther of
the hitherto unknown Bible, at Erfurth, in
1503, and his first giving it to the people in
the vernacular in 1534. . This calumny, rest-
ing on the authority of D'Aubign6, in his
unscholarly history of the Reformation, has
been given the lie direct by honest Protestants
like Dean Maitland ("The Dark Ages," pp.

475-6, 506-514).

What are the facts? "Before the first

Digitized by

Divine Tradition.

85

Protestant version was sent forth into the
world there appeared 84 printed editions of
Holy Writ in the ancient languages; 62 in
Hebrew, of which 12 were of the Old Testa-
ment entire, and 50 of selected portions ; and
22 ,in. Greek, of which 3 were of the Old
Testament, 12 of the New Testament, and
7 of separate portions' of the Scriptures. In
the Latin, which occupied a special posi-
tion as being the universal language of
the educated men of the time, there were
published 343 editions, of which 148 were
of the entire Bible, 62 of the New Testament,
and 133 of separate books of the inspired
writings.

"In the modern languages . . there
were issued 198 editions, of which 104 were
of the entire Bible, comprising 20 in Italian,
26 in French, 19 in Flemish, 2 in Spanish, 6 in
. Bohemian, 1 in Sclavonic, and 30 in German,
^and 94 of single portions of Holy Writ, con-
sisting chiefly of copies of the New Testament
and the Psalms. In all, including the Poly-
glot printed at the cost of Cardinal Ximenes,
626 editions of the Bible and portions of the
Bible, of which 198 were in the languages of
the laity, had issued from the press with the
sanction and at the instance of the Church,
in countries where she reigned supreme, before
Luther's German version of the Bible appeared

Digitized by

86 • The Question Box.

in 1534" (Gigot, " Biblical Lectures," pp. 3d,
312).

The Catholic Church has never prohibited
the reading of the Bible in the original texts,
or in the approved Latin Vulgate version.

The Jews and heretics in the early Church,
the Albigenses in the thirteenth century, the
Wyclifites in the fifteenth, the Protestants of
the sixteenth sought to defend their errors by
perverting the sacred text.

Naturally, therefore, as its guardian and
interpreter, the Catholic Church, out of zeal
for the pure word of God, was in duty bound
to warn her children against human traves-
ties thereof in the vernacular. The local and
universal laws against Bible reading in the
vernacular except with proper safeguards —
v.g,, the synod of Toulouse (1229 a.d.), of
Tarragona (1233 a.d.), of Oxford (1408 a.d.),
the rules of the Index (1574 a.d., 1897 a.d.),
the laws of Benedict XIV. (1757 a.d.), Pius
VIII. (1829), etc., are evident proofs of her
love of Holy Scriptures. The same principle
guides the state in passing her laws against
counterfeiters. Would you say our country is
opposed to the use of good money because she
does not permit unlimited counterfeiting?

A study of the English Protestant versions —
Tyndale's New Testament, Cranmer's Great
Bible (1539 a.d.), the Bishop's Bible (1568

Digitized by

Divine Tradition.

87

a.i>.), the Authorized Version (1611), and the
Revised Version (188 1) — will show a record of
grave omissions, additions, and changes in the
sacred text.

Consider, for example, the changes in the
King James version which affect some of the
essential doctrines of Christianity; v.%.y the
priesthood (Acts xiv. 23 ; xv. 2 ; Tit. i. 5 ;
I. Tim. v. 17, 19; James v. 14), the epis-
copate (Acts xx. 28), and the fact that it
omits seven entire books of the Old Testa-
ment, and parts of Daniel and Esther.

The inaccuracy of Luther's German trans-
lation was pointed out by his Catholic con-
temporary Emser, and Bunsen says there
are at least 3,000 faulty translations (Verres,
" Luther," p. 111 ; Audin's " Life of Luther,' '
vol. ii.) Indeed, Luther never scrupled to
change the text, if the change would enable
him to Lutheranize St. Paul; v.g.y Rom. iii.
20, 28, where he changes the sense entirely
by adding the words only and alo?ie.

The Catholic Church, therefore, encourages
the reading of translations of the Bible in the
vernacular provided they bear the imprimatur
of the bishop, and are edited with explana-
tory notes. On the title-page of many Eng-
lish Catholic Bibles one may read the letter
of Pius VT. to the Archbishop of Florence
(April, 1778):

Digitized by

88

The Question Box.

"At a time that a vast number of bad
books, which grossly attack the Catholic re-
ligion, are circulated even among the un-
learned, to the great destruction of souls, you
judge exceedingly well that the faithful should
be excited to the reading of the Holy Scrip-
tures ; for these are the most abundant sources,
which ought to be left open to every one, to
draw from them purity of morals and of doc- *
trine, to eradicate the errors which are so
widely disseminated in these corrupt times.' 9

Pius VII. wrote in the same strain to the
English vicars-apostolic "to encourage their
people to read the Holy Scriptures; for noth-
ing can be more useful, more consoling, and
more animating, because they serve to con-
firm the faith, to support the hope, and to
influence the charity of the true Christian."

Leo XIII. said in his late encyclical (1893)
on the Bible : " The solicitude of the apostolic
office naturally urges, and even compels us,
not only to desire that this great source of
Catholic revelation should be made safely and
abundantly accessible to the flock of Jesus
Christ, but also not to suffer any attempt to
defile or corrupt it."

Indeed, on December 3, 1898, Pope Leo
granted an indulgence to all Catholics who
will spend fifteen minutes a day in the devout
reading of the Gospels of Jesus Christ.

Digitized by

Divine Tradition.

89

Why did the monks chain the Bible in the
Middle Ages?

To save it from thieves. • Why do people
chain a cup to the town-pump, or a city direc-
tory to a desk in a drug store ? This is readily
understood when one considers how valuable
a copy of the Scriptures was in those days,
owing to the fact that they were copied out
word for word by the monks. Whole libra-
ries were chained in this way, both in Eng-
land and on the Continent. What great ignor-
ance of history is shown by those who imagine
that "the chained Bible " implied that the
Bible was only accessible to a few monks,
who were under orders from the Pope to keep
it from the people as far as possible ! How
prejudice will read into facts its own false
inferences !

Why are Catholics opposed to the reading of
the Bible in public schools ?

One good reason is because the Protestant
version used in the public schools is a faulty
translation of the Word of God, and leaves
out a number of books in the Old Testament.
Moreover, Catholics object to its being read,
and often commented on, by men and women
of every creed and no creed, who often know
little or nothing of its meaning, and even re-
gard it at times as a mere human book.

Digitized by

90

The Question Box.

CREATION IN SIX DAYS.

Must Catholics believe that the world was
created in six days?

Not at all. The Catholic Church has de-
cided nothing dogmatically about the Mosaic
cosmogony, so that Catholics are allowed the
greatest liberty in interpreting the meaning of
the six days.

The purpose of the writer of Genesis is to
declare the great fact of the creation of the
world, and to lead the Jews to honor the Sab-
bath day (Exod. xxxi. 16). The chief theo-
ries regarding the six days are :

i st. The allegorical theory of St. Augustine
(" De Gen. ad Lit," iv. v. 26) and St. Thomas
("De Pot.," q. 2, a. 4), that the whole act
of creation occupied but an instant of time.

2d. The literal theory of days of twenty-
four hours each, which is now generally re-
jected (Veith, Bosizio).

3d. The periodic theory that the " days " are
indefinitely long epochs, which allow for all
the data required by geology and paleontology
(Hettinger, Holzammer, Pianciani).

4th. The revelation theory that the days are
so many visions vouchsafed Moses by God,
with no reference to time whatsoever (Von
Hummelauer) .

5th. The idealistic theory, which regards the

Digitized by

Creation in Six Days. 91

whole account of the creation of the world as
a hymn in which various portions of creation
are commemorated on the days of the week.
(Bishop Clifford, pp. 280-343, G. P. Putnam
& Sons, 1870; G. Molloy, "Geology and
Revelation " ; Bishop Clifford, Dublin Review,
April, 1883; Mgr. Meignan, " Le Monde et
r Homme primitif" ; Arduin, "Le Religion en
face de la Science M;Vigouroux, " Manuel Bib-
lique," vol. i.)

Who was Cain's wife ? (Gen. iv. 17). If Adam,
Eve, Cain, and Abel were the only people in the
world, where did Cain get his wife?

Cain most probably married his own sister,
or his niece. Cain and Abel had many brothers
and sisters, as we learn from Gen. v. 4 : " And
the days of Adam after he begot Seth were
eight hundred years. And- he begot sons and
daughters.' ' This query, which is met with
universally on the non-Catholic missions, arises
from one of two difficulties : 1st, the morality
of an apparently incestuous marriage ; or, 2d,
the denial of the unity of the race.

With regard to the first, St. Augustine an-
swers this very question nearly fifteen centuries
ago: "As, therefore, the human race, sub-
sequently to the first marriage of the man who
was made of dust, and his wife who was made
out of his side, required the union of male and

Digitized by

92

The Question Box.

female, in order that it might multiply; and,
as there were no human beings except those
who had been born of these two, men took
their sisters for wives; an act which was as
certainly dictated by necessity in these ancient
days, as afterwards it was condemned by the
prohibitions of religion " (" The City of God,"
book xv. ch. xvi.)

The moral principles involved are plain to
any student of Catholic ethics. Some actions
are so intrinsically evil and opposed to the
natural law, that no power, not even God,
can permit them for any reason whatsoever —
v.g., blasphemy, lying, etc. Other actions
against nature are evil because of the evil
consequences that result,' unless Gcd by a
special providence intervene to prevent. In
this class must be put the marriage of brother
and sister. Nature itself vetoes such marriages
as utterly subversive of all domestic and social
morality. This was felt even by the pagan
Roman, although the Egyptians^and the Athen-
ians permitted such marriages. No human
power— no church — could grant dispensation in
such a case, but God the Lord and Creator of
all things could permit such marriages in the
beginning to propagate the human race, there
being no other way to do so save by miracu-
lous intervention.

The second difficulty likewise dates from the

Digitized by Google

The Age of the Human Race. 93

Preadamites of the seventeenth century, who
held that Adam was the father of the Jewish
people, but not of the pagans. This theory is
in direct contradiction to the Scriptures (Gen.
ii. 5, 20; iii. 20; Wis. x. 1.; Acts xvii. 26;
Rom. v. 12), which expressly declares the race
descended from Adam and Eve, especially as
set forth in the dogmas of original sin. For a
complete discussion of the subject, and answer
to the objections brought forward by unbe-
lievers, read Vigouroux, " Manuel Biblique,"
n. 301; "I^es Livres Saints,'* vol. iii. ch. 5;
Guibert, "Origin of Species," ch. v.

In the King James version it is said that
Cain went into the land of Nod and there knew
his wife; but this is spurious Scripture.

THE AGE OF THE HUMAN RACE.

Must Catholics believe that the human race
dates from the year 4004 B. C? Does not modern
science give the lie direct to the Biblical chronol-
ogy with regard to the antiquity of man ?

By no means. Catholics are perfectly free to
form their own opinion upon this question,
which has never been defined by the Church.

The Abb6 Moigno writes (" Splendeurs de la
Foi," ii. p. 612) : "The exact date of the crea-
tion of man, of his first appearance upon the

Digitized by

94

The Question Box.

earth, remains entirely uncertain or unknown ;
but there would be some rashness in carrying it
back beyond 8,000 years."

Another distinguished scholar, Abb6 Hamard
(" La Science et PApolog6tique Chr6tienne," p.
31), says: "That it is necessary to adopt the
chronology of the Septuagint, as affording us
notably more time, we are convinced ; but we
fail to see any reason for carrying this chronol-
ogy beyond the 8,000 or 10,000 years which it
affords us as a maximum."

Father Zahm, after a careful discussion of the
question in four articles of the American Catho-
lic Quarterly (1893, pp. 225-248, 562-588, 719-
734; 1894, pp. 260-272), thus sums up: "The
evidence we have examined regarding the age
of our race proves one thing, and proves it most
conclusively ; and that is, that the question we
have been discussing is far from being definitely
answered by Scripture or science, and according
to present indications it seems improbable that
we shall ever have a certain answer regarding
this much controverted topic. The testimony
of astronomy does not, as such, make either for
or against the Biblical chronology, because
astronomy as a science was not cultivated until
some thousands of years after the advent of man
on the earth. The testimony of history, and
especially the history which takes us back
farthest — the history of Egypt, Assyria, Chal-

Digitized by

The Age of the Human Race,

95

dea, and Babylonia — admirably corroborates the
testimony of the Bible concerning the antiquity
of man. The sciences of linguistics, ethnology,
and physiology have discovered nothing that is
incompatible with the acceptance of the chro-
nology of Scripture as understood by our most
competent apologists. The statements of geol-
ogy and prehistoric archaeology are so vague
and conflicting and extravagant that nothing
definite can be gathered from them beyond the
apparently indisputable fact that the age of our
species is greater than the advocates of the He-
brew and Samaritan texts of the Bible have
been wont to admit. It may, however, be as-
serted positively that no certain geologic or
archaeologic evidence so far adduced is irre-
concilable with archaeology that we are war-
ranted in deducing from the known facts and
geological records of the Book of Books.' '
{American Catholic Quarterly \ vol. xix. pp. 269,
270; Sir J. W. Dawson, "Modern Science in
Bible I^ands " ; Vigouroux, " Manuel Biblique,"
vol. i.; "Les Livres Saints,' 9 vol. iii.)

Digitized by

96

The Question Box.

VICIOUS CIRCLE.

You Catholics prove the Church by the Bible,
and then, reversing the process, prove the Bible
by the Church. Is not this reasoning in a
circle ?

If we proved the divine authority of the
Church from the inspired Scriptures, and then
proved the inspiration of the Scriptures from
the divine authority of the Church, we should
indeed be faulty in our logic. But such is not
the Catholic position, as fair-minded. Protestants
like Palmer readily grant ("The Church/ 9
vol. ii. p. 63).

The average Protestant does not seem to
realize that the historical character of the New
Testament is totally separate from the fact of its
inspiration. He assumes without proof that
the Bible is God's word, although the unbe-
liever will tell him that is to be proved abso-
lutely, before a man can back an argument with
a Bible text.

The Catholic carefully distinguishes between
the historical value of the New Testament,
which is a matter of evidence, and the divine
inspiration, which demands a divine witness.
The Catholic proves by mere critical arguments
— just as he would prove a book of Caesar or
Tacitus — that the New Testament Scriptures
are genuine and authentic documents of the

Digitized by

Vicious Circle.

i

97

first century, which relate how Jesus Christ,
who claimed and proved Himself to be the Son
of God, established in the world a divine, au-
thoritative, and infallible teacher, to teach His
gospel and pardon sin in His name until the
end of the world. Having proved this by rea-
son, the Catholic accepts without question the
olivine, infallible teaching of this representative
of Christ, the Catholic Church, on matters of
faith and morality; among these teachings is
the divine, internal fact of Bible inspiration,
which could never be known by textual criti-
cism^ human traditions, or prayerful study ot
the Word of God.

In a word, therefore, the Church is proved on
the historical authority of the New Testament ;
but the historical value of the New Testament
is not proved by the Church ; therefore there is
no fallacy in our reasoning.

Indeed, all Catholics know that their Church
was well established, and that her claims were
acknowledged by thousands of Christians —
converts from Judaism and paganism — before a
single line of the New Testament was written,
and that many martyrs died before the books of
the New Testament were gathered together,
once for all, at the close of the fourth century.

The Church could be proved, then, without
the Bible ; so likewise to-day, if there were no
Bible in the world, she would bear witness to

Digitized by

98

The Question Box.

Christ by her unity, holiness, catholicity,
and apostolicity (Wiseman, "Doctrines of the
Church, " Lecture III., p. 62, et seg.)

THE CHURCH.

What are the conditions of entrance into the
Catholic Church?

Must a convert to your Church be baptized
again, and confess the sins of a lifetime?

The Catholic Church, in accordance with the
teaching of the Scriptures, requires of all adults
who seek admittance into her one true fold the
repentance of all past sin, the detestation of all
past error, and the firm, certain belief in all the
doctrines taught by Christ. "He that believ-
eth and is baptized shall be saved* ' (Mark xvi.
16); "Do penance and be baptized" (Acts
ii. 38).

If a convert is absolutely sure of his baptism,
he cannot be rebaptized, but is bound to con-
fess all grievous sins committed after baptism.
If a Protestant is uncertain about his former
baptism — a frequent case in our day of lax
Christian views and practice — he is baptized
conditionally, with the form : "If thou art not
baptized, I baptize thee in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost.* 9 The sacrament of penance is also

Digitized by Google

The Church.

99

given conditionally, so that a convert is certain
of the forgiveness of sins through one sacrament
or the other.

A convert is obliged to study carefully the
doctrines of the catechism, so that he may have
an accurate knowledge of Catholic teaching,
and be able intelligently to take the oath of the
profession of faith : " With a sincere heart,
therefore, and with unfeigned faith, I detest
and abjure every error, heresy, and sect, op-
posed to the said Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
Roman Church. So help me God, and these
His holy Gospels, which I touch with my hand."

Should not a person live and die in the Church
of their baptism, especially if they have sworn
to do so?

I have met a number of Lutherans in the
Northwest who told me that they had taken an
oath to die Lutherans. Such an oath to wor-
ship Christ in a false Christianity, which He
as the God of truth necessarily condemns, is not
binding, once a person discovers that the Catho-
lic Church is the only Church possessing the
entire gospel of the Saviour. He must aban-
don his heresy and schism once he discovers
them, else salvation is impossible.

Such a one does not hate his own parents and
other relations, as some simple souls are taught
to believe, but rather loves them the more, and

258848

Digitized by Google

IOO

The Question Box,

prays until death for their conversion. Natu-
rally he will be anxious for them, knowing that
possibly they may be sinfully resisting the
grace of God which would bring them into the
true fold. How strangely intolerant are some
parents, who contrary to that first principle of
their Protestantism — private judgments-perse-
cute with bitter hatred their own flesh and
blood who, obedient to conscience and to God's
grace, embrace the religion of their forefathers,
in the old Church of Jesus Christ* Error is
never consistent.

" The religion of my parents is good enough
for me," say some. If you were born in pov-
erty, would you think the condition of your
parents precluded all notion of your bettering
your condition ? So, in like manner, once con-
vinced of the poverty of the partial gospel you
possess, as a rational man you are bound to
embrace " the unsearchable riches " of the true
gospel of Christ (Eph. iii. S).

Is it true that Catholics are bound to hate
Protestants ? I read in your profession of faith
that every convert must take the following oath
on the Gospels: "With a sincere heart, there-
fore, and with unfeigned faith, I detest and ab-
jure every errfor, heresy, and sect opposed to
the said Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Roman
Church."

Digitized by

The Church.

IOI

it is not true. The universal love of our
fellow-men, no matter what their race, color, or
religion, is the strict commandment of Christ :
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself "
(Matt. xix. 19). And the beloved disciple, St.
John, teaches: 14 If any man say, I love God,
and hateth his brother, he is a liar. For he
that loveth not his brother, whom he seeth,
how can he love God, whom he seeth not"
(I. John iv. 20).

The words of the profession of faith are ob-
jective, and imply that, as followers of Christ in
the one divine society which has ever kept His
gospel pure and uncorrupted, we detest, even
as He and His Apostles did (Matt. vii. 15;
xii. 25, 30; xvi. 16; xviii. 17; Rom. xvi.
17; I. Cor. i, 10; Gal. i. 9; Eph, iv. 4;
Heb. xiii. 7-9, etc.), all heresy which is a
denial of God's truth, and schism, which is a
withdrawal from the one fold of the Good Shep*
herd (John x. 16). They in no way refer to
the individuals belonging to false religions or
spurious Christianities, who, through the sins
of their ancestors and ignorance of the true
gospel, are separated from the Church of the
living God.

My mother — a good soul and a sincere Protest-
ant—assures me that it will break her heart if
I become a Catholic. I believe all the teachings

Digitized by

102 The Question Box.

of your Church, but find it hard to pain one so
dear to me.

A very practical difficulty, and one that has
been given me scores of times by timid, doubt-
ing souls.

The true follower of Christ dare not hesitate
to obey His teaching once it is known, for
to be false to one's conscience is to instantly
imperil one's eternal salvation.

Our Lord speaks of this opposition of rela-
tives, but declares that He and His teaching
must come first:

" For I come to set a man at variance against
his father, and the daughter against her mother.
. . . He that loveth father or mother more
than Me, is not worthy of Me" (Matt x.
35, 37).

No true parent can find fault with a child
who is loyal to conscience and to truth; no
true parent can desire a child to commit griev-
ous sin by deliberately refusing to do what he
knows to be the will of God.

The Catholic Church interprets the fourth
commandment, " Honor thy father and thy
mother," to imply obedience in all that is good
and lawful. If a parent command or advise
something contrary to God's law, a child is
bound to disobey, on the apostolic principle :
"We ought to obey God rather than men"
(Acts v. 29).

Digitized by

Visibility.

103

VISIBILITY.

What do Catholics mean by the Church?

Did not Jesus declare that His kingdom was
only to exist in the heart of man ? " The king-
dom of God is within you " (Luke xvii. 21).

Should not the bond of fellowship in Christ be
merely internal?

"By the Church on earth, Catholics un-
derstand the visible community of believers,
founded by Christ, in which by means of an
enduring apostleship, established by Him, and
appointed to conduct all nations, in the course
of ages, back to God, the works wrought by
Him during His earthly life, for the redemp-
tion and sanctification of mankind, are, under
the guidance of His Spirit, continued to the
end of the world " (Mohler, " Symbolism,' * ch.
v. pp. xxxvi. 253).

All the figures and parables used by our
Saviour and the Apostles to designate the
Church declare it to be a visible organism.
It is called a kingdom (Matt. iv. 23 ; xiii.
24), a field (Matt. xiii. 24), a grain of mustard-
seed that becometh a tree (Matt. xiii. 31, 32),
a flock (Acts xx. 28), a city seated on a moun-
tain (Matt. v. 14), a body (I. Cor. xii. 13),
the -body of Christ (I. Cor. xii. 27; Eph. i.
22, 23).

The very fact of the Incarnation — the Word

Digitized by

104

The Question Box.

becoming flesh to speak, teach, work, suffer,
and die as man — ought to lead any thinking
man to believe that the perpetuation of the
Incarnation must needs be through a visible
medium which, like Christ, would be both
human and divine.

Christ was not merely a teacher of doctrine,
but an organizer of a society. He chooses
twelve men under» the leadership of Simon
Peter, gives them power to teach all nations
in His name, and declares those condemned
who will not hearken. Our I^ord could not
command us to hear the Church (Matt, xviii.
17; Mark xvi. 16), unless it were a visible
society that could be recognized by all.

Undoubtedly the Church is a spiritual and
supernatural society, and the externals of its
government, hierarchy, preaching, and sacra-
ments have no other purpose than the invisible
cleansing of men's hearts from sin, and the
invisible enlightenment of men's minds of
error; but, as Cardinal Newman declared,
41 the Church is not a secret society." Its doc-
trines, laws, and worship can be known clearly
and definitely at all times and in all places.

The true follower of Christ, therefore, is the
man living in the faith and love of Christ
Jesus, which is infallibly guaranteed and given
him by the visible Church established by the
Son of God.

Digitized by

Infallibility.

105

The text in question is not to the point.
The Pharisees, who expected the Messias to
come with kingly power, asked Jesus, when
the kingdom of God should come? He re-
buked them, and declared the kingdom of God
had already come, and was being preached by
Him to the Jews.

INFALLIBILITY.

How are we in the twentieth century to find
out with certainty all that the Saviour taught ?

How can you arrogantly claim that your
Church is inf allible ?

The Catholic says, with St. Paul: " Faith
cometh by hearing* ' (Rom. x. 17). The only
way for all men to find out all Christ's teach-
ings with certainty is to listen to the living
voice of a divine, infallible teacher : the Catho-
lic Church. The Catholic believes that, together
with the written word of God, there is a divine
tradition of gospel truth — both of which are
safeguarded and interpreted by a divine, in-
fallible authority instituted by Christ.

If we study well the Scriptures, merely as
genuine historical documents, we find that the
Saviour selected certain of His disciples to be
the teachers of His revelation, and that He in-
vested them with His own divine power and

Digitized by

io6 ' The Question Box.

authority. He sent them to preach His gospel
to the whole world, He commanded men to
believe them under penalty of damnation, He
promised to guarantee all they taught by His
own abiding presence, and to preserve them
from error by the abiding of the Holy Ghost,
the Spirit of Truth.

"And He chose twelve of them, whom also
He named Apostles" (Luke vi. 13).

"All power is given to Me in heaven and
in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations.
. . . Teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you ; and be-
hold I am with you all days, even to the con-
summation of the world " (Matt.' xxviii. 18-20).

"Go ye into the whole world, and preach
the gospel to every creature. He that believeth
and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that be-
lieveth not, shall be condemned* ' (Mark xvi.
15, 16). . v

"As the Father hath sent Me, I also send
you" (John xx. 21).

" He that heareth you, heareth Me ; and he
that despiseth you, despiseth Me ; and he that
despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me"
(Luke x. 16).

"And if he will not hear the Church, let
him be to thee as the heathen and publican "
(Matt, xviii. 17).

"But you shall receive the power of the

Digitized by

Infallibility,

107

Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall
be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, and in all
Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost
part of the earth" (Acts i. 8).

* * And I will ask the Father, and He shall
give you another Paraclete, that He may abide
with you for ever, the Spirit of truth. . . .
He shall abide with you, and shall be in you "
(John xiv. 16, 17).

" But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom
the Father will send in My name, He will
teach you all things, and bring all things to
your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to
you" (John xiv. 26).

It is evident from these words of the Saviour
that the gospel is not to be limited to a book,
but learned from living teachers whose doctrine
and government are identical with His, au-
thoritative, infallible, and divine.

If we turn to the writings of the Apostles,
we see that they expressly claim the authority
of divine infallible teachers of God's revela-
tion, and demand absolute obedience under
penalty of damnation (Mark xvi. 16). All
other teachers are to be avoided, as teaching
false doctrine.

" How then shall they call on Him, in whom
t they have not believed? Or how shall they
believe Him, of whom they have not heard ?
And how shall they hear without a preacher?

Digitized by

io8

Tlie Question Box.

And how shall they preach unless they are
sent? . . . Faith then cometh by hear-
ing; and hearing by the word of Christ "
(Rom. x. 14, 17).

"By whom [Jesus Christ] we have received
grace and Apostleship for obedience to the faith,
in all nations, for His name" (Rom. i. 5).

"To us God hath revealed by His Spirit.
. . . Now we have received not the spirit
of this world but the Spirit that is of God;
that we may know the things that are given
us from God, which things also we speak " (I.
Cor. ii. 10, 12, 13).

"We have the mind of Christ" (I. Cor.
ii. 16).

" We are God's coadjutors" (I. Cor. iiL.9).

" Let a man so account of us as of the min-
isters of Christ, and the dispensers of the mys*
teries of God" (I. Cor. iv. 1).

" [God] hath given to us the ministry of
reconciliation. . . . For Christ, therefore,
we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting
by us" (II. Cor, v. 18^20).

" Sound doctrine, which is according to the
gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which
hath been committed to my trust" (I. Tim.
i. 10, 11).

"There are some that trouble you, and
would pervert the gospel of Christ. But
though we, or an angel from heaven, preach

Digitized by

Infallibility,

109

a gospel to you besides that which we have
preached to you, let him be anathema. . . •
The gospel which was preached by me is not
according to man. For neither did I receive
it of man, nor did I learn it, but by the revela-
tion of Jesus Christ " (Gal. i. 7-11).

uWe are of God. He that knoweth God,
lieareth us. He that is not of God, heareth
us not. By this we know the spirit of truth,
and the spirit of error" (I. John iv. 6).

4 4 When you had received of us the word
of the hearing of God, you received it not as
the word of men, but, as it is indeed, the word
of God" (I. Thess. ii. 13).

Nothing is plainer, therefore, in the Scrip-
tures than the appointment by Jesus Christ of
a divine, infallible teaching body which was
to preach His entire gospel to the world.
There is never a, word commanding His doc-
trine to be written ; His gospel is to be
preached by the Apostles, and hearkened to
by the faithful, as if He Himself were speak-
ing.

Was this divine economy to end with the
death of the Apostles? No; Jesus Christ
plainly tells us that His gospel should be
taught until the end by a perpetual series of
successors of the Apostolic teaching body.

He promised to be with them all days (Matt,
xxviii. 20), and to send the Holy Spirit to

Digitized by

no

The Question Box,

abide with them for ever to teach them all
things (John xiv. 16, 26); He gives them a
mission to the whole world (Matt, xxviii. 19) ;
to every creature (Mark xvi. 15). They per-
sonally were not to remain upon earth until
the end, and so Christ's words evidently refer
to a perpetual Apostolic succession to witness
His gospel for ever.

We read, accordingly, in St. Paul's epistles
how the Apostles ordained teachers, and com-
manded them in turn to ordain others who
would faithfully guard the deposit of faith,
and hand down to succeeding generations until
the end every doctrine that had been taught
by Jesus Christ.

Cl For this cause I left thee in Crete, that
thou shouldst set in order the things that are
wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every
city, as I also appointed theeM (Tit. i. 5).

" Stir up the grace of God which is in thee
by the imposition of my hands " (II. Tim. i. 6) .

" O Timothy, keep that which is committed
to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties
of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely
so called" (I. Tim. vi. 20).

" Hold the form of sound words, which thou
hast heard of me in faith, and in the love
which is Christ Jesus. Keep the good thing
committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost,
who dwelleth in usM (II. Tim. i. 13, 14).

Digitized by

Infallibility. in

" The things which thou hast heard of me
by many witnesses, the same commend to faith-
ful men, who shall be fit to teach others also "
(II. Tim. ii. 2).

" Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold
the traditions which you have learned, whether
by word or by our epistle 99 (II. Thess. ii. 14).

"And He gave some apostles, and some
prophets, and other some evangelists, and other
some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of
the saints, for the work of the ministry, for
the edifying of the body of Christ (/.*., the
Church) until we all meet in the unity of
faith 99 (Eph. iv. 11).

Thus we see clearly that the only certain
way for all men to learn the gospel of Christ
is from the living voice of an infallible Church,
" the pillar and ground of the truth 99 (I. Tim.
iii. 15). Such is the teaching of Scripture;
such the constant voice of tradition from the
beginning.

Thus, Origen wrote in the third century :
" Many think they believe what Christ taught,
and some of these differ from others. . . .
All should profess that doctrine which came
down from the Apostles, and now continues
inr the Church ; that alone is truth which in
nothing differs from what is thus delivered * '
(Praef. Iyib. i. Periarchon). And St. Augus-
tine in the fifth century: "Do thou run to

Digitized by

112

The jQuestion Box.

the tabernacle of God. Hold fast to the Catho-
lic Church; do not depart from the rule of
truth, and thou shalt be protected in the
tabernacle from the contradiction of tongues "
(Enar. iii. in Ps. 30).

Reason and revelation both demand that the
teacher of Christ's doctrine and morality should
speak with no uncertain voice. A church
which disclaims infallibility must sooner or
later be powerless to teach men the revelation
of God. "Any supernatural religion,' ' says
the Protestant writer, Mallock, 11 that renounces
its claim to this [absolute infallibility], it is
clear can profess to be a semi-revelation only.
It is a hybrid thing, partly natural and partly
supernatural, and it thus practically has all the
qualities of a religion that is wholly natural.
In so far as it professes to be revealed, it of
course professes to be infallible ; but if the re-
vealed part be in the first place hard to distin-
guish, and in the second place hard to under-
stand ; if it may mean many things, and many
of those things contradictory, it might just as
well have been never made at all. To make it
in any sense an infallible revelation, or in other
words a revelation at all, to us, we need a power
to interpret the testament that shall have equal
authority with that testament itself" ("Is I/ife
Worth Irving ? " ch. xi. p. 267 et seq., Putnam,
1879).

Digitized by

Infallibility.

Indeed, once you grant that God has made a
revelation to the world through Jesus Christ
His Son, you must also grant that if all men n
are " to come to the knowledge of the truth "
(I. Tim. ii. 4), and to believe under the penalty
of damnation (Mark xvi. 16) , God must neces-
sarily guarantee with absolute infallible cer-
tainty the doctrines of salvation. He cannot
allow His followers to be led astray by false
prophets (Mark xiii. 21) and lying teachers
(II. Pet. ii. 1), who preach a new gospel op-
posed to His (Gal. i. 8).

Is not Protestantism to-day, with its vague-
ness, contradictions, uncertainty, lack of unity
in government and doctrine, constant varia-
tions, its inability to command and teach, its
denial of the fundamental dogmas of Chris-
tianity, its downward tendency toward indiflfer-
entism and unbelief, a standing argument of the
necessity of an infallible teacher ? Disclaiming
infallibility, it cannot demand the assent of any
rational man.

Catholicism, with its perfect Catholic unity
of government and doctrine, its definiteness,
certainty, permanence amid changes of time
and place and people, its divine power of teach-
ing and commanding under penalty of hell, its
absolute uncompromising condemnation of in-
differentism and infidelity in every form, stands
unique and alone as the divine, infallible, one,

Digitized by

114

The Question Box.

holy, Catholic, and Apostolic society established
by the Christ. (MacLaughlin, "The Divine
Plan of the Church"; Bagshawe, "The
Church"; Cox, "The Pillar and Ground of
the Truth " ; Lyons, " Christianity and Infal-
libility " ; Mohler, 1 * Symbolism, ' 9 ch. v. ;
Schanz, "A Christian Apology," vol. iii.;
Newman, "Essay on Development," p. 75 et
seq.; Duke, "King, Prophet, and Priest.")

Is not your doctrine of Infallibility opposed
to liberty of thought?

Is not a Catholic hampered in his search after
truth by his blind, degrading obedience to the
claims of an infallible Church?

The doctrine of infallibility is opposed to the
false liberty of thinking error, but not to the
true liberty of thinking the truth. This objec-
tion is based on the false notion that unre-
stricted liberty of thought is a good thing, and
that every man has a right to think just as he
pleases. The Catholic Church maintains, how-
ever, that no one has a right to believe what is
false, any more than he has a right to do what
is evil. Christ plainly tells us that error and
sin imply not the liberty but the slavery of the
intellect and will. "You shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make you free" (John viii.
32) ; " Whosoever committeth sin, is the ser-
vant of sin" (ibid. 34).

Digitized by

Infallibility.

115

Universal liberty of thought is impossible,,
for every principle and fact of reason or revela-
tion that we acquire must necessarily restrict
our liberty of thinking the opposite. Once we
clearly grasp any truth, we are bound by the
law of our reason to accept it. No intelligent
man to-day would consider himself free to deny
the fact of wireless telegraphy, the existence of
bacteria, or X rays, the phenomena of hypnot-
ism, or the earth's movement around the sun.
No man of sense, even if he had never travelled
beyond his own little village, would question
the testimony of others regarding the existence
of I/>ndon, Pekin, or Calcutta. Speculation is
useless, and opinions are absurd, when we are
face to face with undoubted facts. A man full
of prejudice, ignorance, and error may think
himself free to believe many calumnies against
the Catholic Church. He may believe that
Catholics adore the saints and worship their
images, sell indulgences, pay money for confes-
sion, and the like. He may believe that they
teach that the end justifies the means, that it is
lawful to lie to heretics, that the Pope can do
no wrong. But surely he is not to be congratu-
lated for this freedom of believing what is not
so. Such liberty of thought is not a blessing,
but a curse, to be done away with as soon as
possible by a knowledge of the truth.

We can readily see how non-Catholics, whose

Digitized by

Ii6

TJie Question Box.

religion disclaims infallibility and rests on the
shifting sands of private judgment, should,
quarrel with any certain teaching in religion.
They cannot agree among themselves about
the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity,
and their belief resting on mere opinion, logi-
cally is uncertain, hesitating, and questioning.
The result with those who carry matters to
their logical conclusion is scepticism, indiffer-
ence, and unbelief.

The Catholic, however, believing in a Church
authority which, like Christ, is divine and in-
fallible, speaking in His name and with His
authority, gladly welcomes the revelation of
God she voices, with a certain, unhesitating
assent. The Church to him is Christ speak-
ing: " He that heareth you, heareth Me"
(Luke x. 16), and therefore he knows she can-
not deceive nor be deceived. A Catholic, there-
fore, would no more question the doctrine
of auricular confession, transubstantiation, the
Trinity, eternal punishment, than a mathema-
tician would the fact that two sides of a tri-
angle are greater than the third.

The submission of the Catholic to the Church
is not "a blind, degrading obedience* ' to a
mere human authority, but the assent of faith
to a divine authority, which he can prove pro-
claims to the world all the teachings of the
Saviour. He knows by reason that God hath

Digitized by

Infallibility.

117

spoken; he believes by faith all that God has
said, because He is the Infinite Truth. " If we
receive the testimony of men, the testimony of
God is greater* ' (I. John v. 9).

The Catholic is not hampered in his search
for truth, any more than the scientist is ham-
pered by any ascertained principle or fact of
science. Indeed, the certainty of revealed truth
gives him a greater confidence and freedom in
the pursuit of new truths. Many things are
left open to speculation, outside the domain of
defined dogma. With an infallible guide, he
calmly views the progress of science, carefully
distinguishing opinion from principle, hypothe-
sis from fact, and does not change his doctrines
to meet the shifting views of unproven scien-
tific theories.

Infallibility, therefore, is the corrective of
ignorance and error, and the foe to uncertainty
about the dogmas revealed by God. As Car-
dinal Newman wrote: " It is a supply for a
need, and it does not go beyond the need. Its
object is, and its, effect also, not to enfeeble the
freedom or vigor of human thought, but to re-
sist and control its extravagance " ("Apolo-
gia,'' p. 253, Longmans, Green & Co., 1897).

And the Protestant writer Mallock : " It [the
doctrine of infallibility] is not a fetter only ;
it is a support [also ; and those who cling to it
can venture fearlessly, as explorers, into cur-

Digitized by

n8

The Question Box.

rents of speculation that would sweep away
altogether men who did but trust to their own
powers of swimming " ("Is Life Worth liv-
ing? " ch. xii. p. 310).

Is not your Church a spiritual despotism in
which men must surrender their private judg-
ment in religion to men like themselves?

If the Church were a mere human authority
that undertook to give its own views of Christ's
teachings, like Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Fox,
Socinus, Mrs. Eddy, Dowie, a rational thinker
might indeed call it a spiritual despotism when
it attempted in the slightest degree to command
in matters of faith or morals.

But the Catholic Church is a divine teacher,
commissioned by the Almighty Son oi God to
teach all nations till the end of time in His
name and with His authority, and guaranteed
as 4 'the pillar and ground of* the truth" by
His abiding presence and the Holy Spirit's
(Matt, xxviii. 18-20.; Mark xvi. 15, 16; John
xiv. 16; xvi. 13; Luke x. 16 ; I. Tim. iii. 15,
etc.) There can, therefore, be no question of
any intellectual or moral slavery for a man to
submit to her authority, which is God's. " He
that heareth you heareth me" (Luke x. 16).

"It is not the Church that, established spir-
itual despotism ; it is she who saves us from it.
Spiritual despotism is that which subjects us,

Digitized by

Infallibility.

119

in spiritual matters, to a human authority,
whether our own or that of others, — for our
own is as human as another's, — and the only
redemption from it is having in spiritual mat-
ters a divine authority. Protestants themselves
acknowledge this when they call out for the
pure word of God. The Church teaches by
divine authority ; in submitting to her we sub-
mit to God, and are freed from all human au-
thority. She teaches infallibly; therefore, in
believing what she teaches, we believe the
truth, which frees us from falsehood and error,
to which all- men without an infallible guide
are subject, and submission to which is the
elemental principle of all spiritual despotism.
Her authority admitted excludes all other au-
thority, and therefore frees us from heresiarchs
and sects, the very embodiment of spiritual
despotism in its most odious form" (O. A.
Brownson's Works, vol. x. p. 128).

Indeed, what is the fundamental reason to-
day of the downwafd trend of Protestantism
toward infidelity ? Is it not the fact that intel-
ligent men are beginning more and more to
realize the slavery of being subject to a sect's
human and fallible version of Christianity?
How many Protestants to-day, for example,
hold to the original doctrine of Luther or of
Calvin! Very many even deny the essential
dogmas Christ taught, viz.: the Trinity, the

Digitized by

120 The Question Box.

Divinity of Christ, eternal punishment, and the
like. A pretty conclusive argument this that
either there is in the world to-day a teacher
divine, infallible, and authoritative even as
Christ, namely, the Catholic Church, or no man
living can be certain that he possesses the com-
plete gospel the Saviour taught.

Does not your Church substitute her authority
for reason ?

By no means. She undoubtedly demands
the acceptance of her divine authority, for
faith is essentially the acceptance of truth on
the authority of God. She does not, however,
ask men to accept her claims blindly, but de-
sires them first of all to convince themselves by
their reason of the fact of God's revelation and
its content, and then before obeying her to be
morally certain that she is, as she claims, the
divine authoritative, infallible teacher of God
upon earth. What can be more reasonable ?

Far from denying the rights of reason, she
condemned in Reformation times those who
asserted that the fall rendered man unable to
attain to any truth without revelation (Trent,
Sess. VI., can. 4-6 ), and in our own day she
condemns the unbeliever who denies the power
of reason to demonstrate the existence of
God.

Many a convert, who has found peace after

Digitized by

Infallibility.

121

many years of seeking, can voice the following
words of Father Hecker : " It was one of the
happiest moments of our life, when we discov-
ered for the first time that it was not required
of us to abandon our reason or drown it in a
false excitement to be a religious man. That to
become a Catholic, so far from being contrarj'
to reason, was a supreme act of reason"
("Questions of the Soul, p. 286; cf. " Aspira-
tions of Nature," xxiii. xxiv.)

Did not Martin Luther, in his bold protest
against an usurped authority, stand for the rights
of the individual reason ?

One might think so from the vague and
erroneous assertions of certain non-Catholic
writers and speakers, but no student of his
works would dare to claim him as a champion
of reason. On the contrary, no one could
possibly underrate it more.

He declared that " its activity is always evil
and godless,' ' that it is useless as a guide to
the truth of God: "The Christian revelation
rejects clearly all flesh and blood — that is, what
is human, and all human reason, since these
certainly are not able to lead us to Christ.' '
In fact, he held that "reason goes straight
against belief. We ought, therefore, to let rea-
son slide. Reason must be killed and buried in
faith. You say reason is a light to faith, that

Digitized by

122

The Question Box.

it should enlighten faith where it shall go.
Yes, in my judgment reason sheds light, like a
piece of dirt in a lantern 99 (Quoted by Hecker,
" Aspirations of Nature," xvii. pp. 116, 117,
119. Cf. Mohler's ' « Symbolism ").

How different the Catholic teaching, which
holds that original sin did not destroy any of
man's natural faculties, but left his reason and
his free will essentially unimpaired. With the
Catholic, reason "is the most distinguished
gift of Heaven " (Pius IX., Letter to the Aus-
trian Bishops, 1856). It is the guide to faith
whereby a man can prove beforehand certain
fundamental dogmas, such as the existence of
God, the spirituality of the soul, and free will,
and the fact that God has made a revelation to
men. Otherwise faith would be an irrational
act and not a " reasonable service* ' (Rom. xii.
1; see "Aspirations of Nature,' 9 ch. xxiii.
xxiv.)

How can you put the laws of your Church on
the same level as the Commandments of Sinai,
and say that any one who disobeys them merits
damnation ?

Because the Catholic Church is not a mere
human institution founded by men, who im-
posed laws and creeds of their own devising,
but a divine, infallible society founded by
Jesus Christ to teach and command in His

Digitized by

Infallibility.

123

name and with His authority until the end of
time. To believe her teaching is to believe
Christ ; to obey her commands is to obey
Christ ; to despise her is to despise Christ.

" As the Father hath sent Me, I also send
you" (John xx. 21).

1 * All power is given to Me in heaven and in
earth. Going, therefore, teach ye all nations "
(Matt, xxviii. 19).

"And if he will not hear the Church, let
him be to thee as the heathen and publican M
(Matt, xviii. 17).

"He that despiseth you, despiseth Me"
(I^uke x. 16).

"Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth
shall be bound also in heaven' ' (Matt, xviii.

18).

Any one, therefore, who knows that the
Catholic Church is God's only Church, and
refuses to obey her, is guilty of grievous sin
before God. To eat meat on Friday, to stay
away from Mass on Sunday, or to fail to re-
ceive the sacraments at Easter time — if done
deliberately and in malice — are direct insults
to Jesus Christ whose representative the Church
is, and therefore deprive the sinner of God's
friendship.

I believe that a Christian can personally fol-
low Christ without spiritual rulers, popes or

Digitized by

124

The Question Box.

bishops, to dictate by creeds, rites, and laws
what men must think and do to be saved.

You do not, then, believe in the Christianity
of Jesus Christ, as witnessed to in the New
Testament.

The Saviour selected twelve Apostles (Matt,
x. i), sent them to preach the gospel to the
whole world (Matt, xxviii. 19), to administer
the seven sacraments (Matt, xxviii. 19 ; John

xx. 23; I. Cor. xi. 23-29; Acts viii. 14-T7;
James v. 14, 15 ; I. Tim. iv. 14; Matt. xix. 6),
to make laws and to govern (Matt, xviii. 18 ;
Acts xx. 28), with and under the chief Apostle,
St. Peter (Matt. xvi. 18; Luke xxii. 32; John

xxi. 15-17). St. Paul speaks clearly of men
who have divine power to rule, to teach, and
to command the Christian people. "And he
gave some apostles, and some prophets, and
other some evangelists, and other some pas-
tors and doctors, for the perfecting of the
saints, for the work of the ministry, for
the edifying of the Body of Christ [the
Church], until we all meet into the unity of
faith" (Eph. iv. 11-13; cf. I. Cor. xii. 28, 29).

Creeds are verbal, concrete expressions of
the truths revealed by God, and guaranteed to
the world by the* divine, infallible witness of
the Church guided by the Holy Spirit (John
xiv. 26). Rites or sacraments are not merely
human or ecclesiastical ceremonies, but outward

Digitized by

Infallibility, 125

signs of the grace of God instituted by Christ,
to convey to us the fruits of His death upon
the cross. Laws are necessary to a visible
society like the Church, that it might not
degenerate into anarchy of doctrine and gov-
ernment.

If, as you pretend, the claims of your Church
are so strong, why is it that so many intelligent
non-Catholics fail to see their force ?

There are many reasons to account for this.
Prejudice is a great obstacle to faith. Many
from childhood have been taught by parents,
teachers, ministers, and books that the Catho-
lic Church is the enemy of reason, science, and
progress, the falsifier of Scripture and of his-
tory, the home of corruption, superstition, and
intolerance. Indeed, many a convert has told
me that he would as soon have thought of
considering the claims of Mohammedanism as
those of Catholicity, so much did he despise it.

The easy, modern dogma of Indifferentism
likewise keeps many from the truth. Many
men are wearied of the uncertainty and contra-
dictions of Protestant Christianity, and yet, un-
, true to reason and conscience, they shrink from
earnest and sincere search after the revelation
of God, vainly striving to satisfy the claims of
conscience by the plea that it makes no differ-
ence what a man believes, provided he lead a

Digitized by

126

The Question Box.

pretty good life, and is kind to his family and
his friends.

Above all, the Sins of pride, worldliness,
sensuality, and avarice bandage men's eyes to
the light of God's truth. " The sensual man,"
says St. Paul, * * perceiveth not those things
that are of the spirit of God ; for it is foolish-
ness to him, and he cannot understand" (I.
Cor. ii. 14). A man's unbelief, or sometimes
his denomination, sits lightly upon him, en-
forcing few obligations beyond those of ex-
ternal propriety and good form, not interfering
in the slightest with his private religious opin-
ions, however erroneous, or with his cherished
habits of sin. It is hard, indeed, for such to
consider the claims of a Church that teaches
with the authority of God a certain body of
definite dogmas; that prescribes in His name
certain hard religious duties, as confession, ob-
ligatory church attendance, fasting and absti-
nence ; that denounces strongly divorce and all
immorality in the marriage state.

Other unfaithful' ones dread the Consequences
of Conversion , viz.: the bitter opposition of
relatives, the loss of friends, the injury to one's
business prospects, the social ostracism, and the
hostile voice of public opinion in a town or
city where Catholics are looked down upon as
poor and ignorant.

We remind our questioner, however, of the

Digitized by

1

Infallibility, 127

many thousands of the best and most intelligent
men and women in Protestantism and unbelief
who are coming back every year to the Church
their forefathers left some four hundred years
ago. ' Nothing but the absolute satisfaction
given by the Church to every demand of mind
and will and heart could make these cour-
ageous souls conquer the many difficulties that
lie in a convert's path. With a mind alert to
know God's truth, with a will to embrace it
wherever found, with a heart repenting of past
sin and full of the childlike spirit the Master
spoke of as essential, the return is easy for
every earnest soul.

Is not the whole tendency of the Catholic
Church to hinder the direct relationship of man
with God?

On the contrary, its sole aim is to bring the
individual souls of men into immediate union
with God, through Jesus Christ. -

While Protestantism leaves men subject to
every vagary of private judgment with regard
to Christ's teachings, so that millions in their
doubting and uncertainty are led to unbelief,
the Catholic Church, as a divine, infallible,
authoritative teacher, teaching in the name of
the Son of God, guarantees to the world an ab-
solute certainty of all the truths of God.

Protestantism, again, with its partial or total

Digitized by

128 The Question Box,

denial of Christianity as a sacramental religion,
deprives men of the great helps to that union
with God that Christ gave the world, and
which all Christians enjoyed until the Reforma-
tion. How many non-Catholics to-day regard
Baptism as a mere ceremony ! The Catholic
Church declares it the divinely appointed way
of entrance into the kingdom of God, and of
oneness with Christ through cleansing from
sin. How many non-Catholics who believe in
baptismal regeneration, and yet know of no
sacrament for the forgiveness of sins committed
after baptism, and are anxious, and wonder
whether or not their souls are free from stain !
The Catholic Church in the sacrament of pen-
ance guarantees the sinner real certainty of par-
don ; if he but repent and promise amendment,
he is again united with God in the friendship of
God's grace.

Protestantism again, with its cold and bar-
ren eating of bread and drinking of wine in
memory of Christ, must yield to that wonderful,
sublime doctrine of the Catholic Church, which
declares that there is no closer union possible
of the soul and its God than that of Holy Com-
munion, for as Christ Jesus Himself promised :
" He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My
blood, abideth in Me and I in him" (John
vi. 57)-

The Blessed Virgin and the other saints of

Digitized by

Infallibility.

129

God, loved by every Catholic because mani-
festly the friends of Christ, do not prevent our
direct access to Him, but rather help it, for
they know how much we need Him. With the
Mother of God they say to us: "Whatsoever
He shall say to 3'ou, do ye" (John ii. 5), or
with St. Paul : * ' Be ye followers of me, as I
also am of Christ' ' (I. Cor. xi. 1).

The Catholic priesthood does not at will
frame doctrines which the people must accept,
nor does' it interpret capriciously the moral
code and force the conscience of the individual
through the confessional; but it preaches the
doctrines of the deposit of the faith, and inter-
prets the law of Christ according to the Chris-
tian principle handed down from the beginning.
The priest no more interferes with a man's re-
lationship with God than our ambassador to
England hinders that country's relations with
ours.

Does not the Catholic Church insist rather on
an outward conformity with her teachings than
on fidelity to conscience?

Did not the Reformation do away for ever with
a morality based on an obedience to a priesthood,
and substitute one founded on the sacred char-
acter of the individual conscience ?

On the contrary, the Catholic Church has
always maintained the inviolability of the indi-

Digitized by

130

The Question Box.

vidual conscience. The only reason of her ex-
istence is to teach men their individual respon-
sibility to the truths taught by Christ, that,
following out a rightly instructed conscience,
they might enjoy God's presence for ever. She
teaches that conscience is ever the interpreter
of the moral law to the individual; it must
needs be obeyed, for its power to command rises
from its being the voice of God. Pope Inno-
cent III. taught plainly: " Whatever is done
contrary to conscience leads to hell M (Decret.
Lib. II. tit. 13, c. 13). And St. Thomas:
" Therefore it must be said, that every [sin-
cere] conscience, whether it be right or incul-
pably erroneous, whether it regards things in
themselves evil or indifferent, is obligatory, so
that he who acts against conscience sinsM
(Quodlibet, q. iii. a. 27).

The Church does not put herself in the place
of conscience; neither does the priesthood.
The infallible teaching authority of the Church,
declaring with certainty the morality of Christ's
gospel, gives firmness and strength to the moral
judgment of the individual, who without it
would be left to build on the shifting sands of
private judgment. The Catholic priest does
not shoulder the individual conscience, and
weaken character by enforcing a stupid obedi-
ence ; but rather strives in every way to edu-
cate the conscience of the people according to

Digitized by

hide f edibility.

131

the teaching of Christ, so that they may better
know the truth and do the right.

Catholics, indeed, obey the laws of their
Church, because they know she has a divine
right to command. Does obedience to the laws
of the state militate against the individual con-
science? Why, then, should obedience to
Christian law?

The Reformation produced indeed an exag-
gerated individualism, which by declaring every
man equally competent to find out the doctrines
of the Saviour from his own private reading of
the Scriptures, has led millions to the utter
denial of Christ and His doctrines of faith and
morality.

INDEFECTIBIUTY.

Is it not a notorious fact that the Church of
Rome flagrantly erred? How, then, can you
call it the Church of Christ?

Although it is a commonplace of Protestant
controversy to state that the Church fell into
error any time from the fourth to the sixteenth
century, and that it was resurrected in all its
pristine purity by the Reformation, such state-
ment has never been proved. Indeed, it would
give the lie direct to the promises of Christ :
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build My Church, and the gates of hell shall

Digitized by

132 The Question Box.

not prevail against it " (Matt. xvi. 18). " Be-
hold I am with you all days, even to the con-
summation of the world* * (Matt, xxviii. 20).
' ' 1 will ask the Father, and He shall give you
another Paraclete, that he may abide with you
for ever" (John xiv. 16).

True, indeed, in certain times and places her
unfaithful children have grown lax in disci-
pline, weak in religious fervor, and through
heresy and immorality defections have oc-
curred ; still, Christ's divine words are the guar-
antee that in her constitution and her doctrines
she can never cease to exist as the kingdom of
God on earth.

Suppose, for example, that the Church could
fail. Instantly her power to teach men would
cease, for one could readily refuse obedience on
the plea that the Church had already failed,
or that her Founder was a mere man without
divine authority to teach. Christ, therefore,
either established a Church that could not err,
or He never established any teaching authority
at all.

Will you not admit that a reformation was
needed in the sixteenth century?

We will readily grant that a reformation in the
lives of many unworthy churchmen of the day
was imperatively needed, and that unless many
Catholics of the period had been living most
corrupt lives, they would never have aban-

Digitized by

Indef edibility.

133

doned the Church of Jesus Christ. The Catho-
lic's loss of faith is ever traceable to the break-
ing of the Ten Commandments. The Church
felt this keenly herself, and reformed many
abuses at the Council of Trent, 1545-1563.

But once grant that the Church is a divine
institution founded by Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, to teach and save men for all time ; once
grant that He promised to build it secure for
ever against all attacks of hell, and to guaran-
tee its perpetuity by His own abiding presence
and that of the Holy Spirit (Matt, xxviii. 19,
20 ; Matt. xvi. 18 ; John xiy. 16) , and the right
' of separation can in no way be justified.

As long as our country remains a country it
will ever have the power to reform by law the
abuses inevitable to any government among
men. If, for example, a city became full of
corrupt officials, we would not be justified in
trying to destroy it, but would strive at the
next election to put the proper men in power.
So the Church, in like manner, has within her-
self the power to remedy any abuses that may
arise. You do not cure a man of .cancer by
chopping off his head.

A so-called reformation which denied the
constitution of the Church, the doctrines of
Christ, and the manner of Christian worship —
Holy Mass, handed down from the beginning —
was not of God.

Digitized by

134

T/ie Question Box.

St. Paul put it plainly : " Though we, or an
angel from heaven, preach a gospel beside that
which we have preached to you, let him be
anathema" (Gal. i. 8).

The very lives of the Reformers; the im-
moral, destructive, unchristian doctrines they
taught — v. g., private interpretation of the
Scriptures, justification by faith alone, total- de-
pravity, the slave will, God the author of evil,
the denial of the sacramental system — are proof
positive that the Reformation was inevitably a
tendency toward utter unbelief.

Whence again, Catholics ask, the right of
L,uther, Calvin, etc., to teach? What were'
their credentials? "How shall they preach,
unless they be sent?" (Rom. x. 15).

No wonder, then, that the Reformers them-
selves admitted that their Reformation did not
reform, but on the contrary led to intellectual,
social, moral, and religious deterioration. This
is amply shown in a work drawn exclusively
from Protestant sources, "The Reformation,
its Interior Development and its Effects/ ' by
Dollinger, Ratisbon, 1846-8. (Cf. article in
Dublin Review, September, 1848.)

Did not Savonarola, in the fifteenth century,
attempt to- do what Luther did in the sixteenth ?
Was not Savonarola the precursor of Luther ?

" Savonarola's life, teaching, and creed were

Digitized by

Unity.

135

the very antithesis of the life, teaching, and
creed of the Reformers of the sixteenth age.
They left the cloister for the world; he left
the world for the cloister, and was ever true to
his vows. They began by self-deformation, on
their own admission ; he by self-reformation,
on the evidence of friend and foe. They
dragged down public morality, on their own
showing; he raised it to the highest perfec-
tion. They aimed at reforming creed and doc-
trine ; he reformed morals and men, upholding
always doctrine and creed. They denied what
he taught : the necessity of good works, the
need of the sacraments as channels of grace,
transubstantiation, rites and ceremonies, loyalty
to Peter's See, and devotion to the Mother of
God. How, then, can he, be their 4 leader,'
their * harbinger, ' who condemns and anathe-
matizes them all?,, (J. Procter, ' ' Savonarola
and the Reformation,' ' Catholic Truth Society
publications).

UNITY.

Is there not a vast difference between the faith
of a learned and an ignorant Catholic?

Both believe the same, inasmuch as both be-
lieve on the authority of God revealing, as
witnessed to infallibly by a divine, authori-

Digitized by

136

The Question Box.

tative teacher, speaking in the name of Jesus
Christ — the Catholic Church.

The trained theologian may know more facte,
have a better grasp of principles, and be better
able to defend Catholic doctrine than the aver-
age Catholic ; still, the self-same dogmas must
be believed by both under penalty of dam-
nation.

You claim to have always taught the same
doctrine ? Why, I remember myself two new
teachings of your Church, the Immaculate Con-
ception and the Infallibility of the Pope.

Can the Catholic Church impose as many new
creeds as she pleases ? Are not all the doctrines
of Christianity contained in the Apostles' Creed ?

The Cathdlic Church maintains that after
the death of St. John there has been no objec-
tive increase in the deposit of faith, although
there is a progress and a development in our
understanding of it. She declares that no new
revelation shall ever supersede the revelation
of Jesus Christ, and that no additional teach-
ing can ever be taught.

Jesus Christ plainly taught that all truths
were manifested to the Apostles by Himself
and the Holy Spirit (John xvi. 12, 13 ; xiv.
26), and His commission to them is to preach
"all that He had commanded M (Matt, xxviii.
20). St. Paul declares the impossibility of

Digitized by

Unity.

1 57

any new teaching being of Christ: " Though
we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel
to you besides that which we have preached
to you, let him be anathema M (Gal. i. 8). He
warns Timothy to guard the deposit of faith
(I. Tim. vi. 20), and in his Epistle to the
Hebrews he clearly teaches the perpetual, un-
changing character of the new dispensation
(Heb. viii. 7, 13 ; xii. 27, 28; vii. 11, ct seq )
So in the Catholic Church, novelty or newness
of doctrine has ever been regarded as the sign
of error.

Thus the Vatican Council : " For the Holy
Spirit was not promised to the successors of
Peter, that by His revelation they might make
known new doctrine, but that by His assistance
they might inviolably keep and faithfully ex-
pound the revelation or deposit of faith de-
livered through the Apostles* ' (Sess. IV.
ch. iv.)

What, then, is meant by the definition of
new dogmas — as, for example, the Immacu-
late Conception (1854), and the Infallibility of
the Pope (1870) ? Definition is not the making
of new beliefs, but the infallible declaration
that such belief is a part of the original de-
posit of the faith handed down from the Apos-
tles. Before such declaration the dogma ex-
isted, although it was not explicitly believed
by all Christians. After the definition, it must

Digitized by

138

The Question Box.

be believed by all Christians because of the
infallible witness to its truth by the living
voice of God's Church*

If a Protestant call the doctrine of infalli-
bility an addition to the faith because only
defined in late years, on the same principle
he ought logically to call the doctrines of the
divinity of Christ (defined in a.d. 325) and
the divinity of the Holy Ghost (defined in a.d.
381) new doctrines.

There is, however, a development of dogma
in the Catholic Church, although no teaching
of new dogmas. Vincent of Lerins (a.d. 431)
wrote: "Is there, then, no progress of re-
ligion in the Church of Christ ? Surely there
is; and very great progress. . . . But it
is truly a progress in the faith, and not a
change. It is of the nature of progress that
the particular thing should itself be ampli-
fied, but of change that something should be
turned from one thing into another " (Common,
xxiii.) Development, therefore, means the
increase of knowledge on the part of Chris-
tians regarding the doctrines of Christ. There
is hardly a dogma of the Christian revelation
that has not been brought out into clearer
light and minuter detail under the strain of
controversy or the attacks of heresy. The
early heresies concerning the Trinity and the
Incarnation brought out more clearly the fact

Digitized by

Unity. 1 39

that God was one nature in three divine Per-
sons; that the Son was consubstantial to the
Father; that the Holy Ghost proceeded from
the Father and the Son ; that in Jesus Christ
the divine and the human natures were united
in one divine personality ; that the Blessed
Virgin was the Mother of God, etc. The
new teachings of the Reformation caused the
explicit teachings of the Church concerning
Justification, the Sacraments, Indulgences, the
veneration of the Saints, the existence of Pur-
gatory, etc.

How illogical indeed for some men, like the
Anglicans, to admit the right of the Church
in the first five centuries to define dogmas and
deny it to her afterwards, when Christ promised
to be always with His Church as the infallible
guarantee of her true teaching (Matt, xxviii.
20).

Not all but only the chief doctrines of Chris-
tianity are explicitly contained in the Apostles'
Creed, although all are implicitly comprised in
the article " 1 believe in the Catholic Church/'
The Church has the right to make new creeds
to safeguard her doctrine against new heresies ;
but a new creed does not imply new dogmas,
but merely new and fuller explanations of the
deposit of faith handed down from the be-
ginning. (Newman, "Development of Chris-
tian Doctrine" ; Oxenham, "The Catholic

Digitized by

140 The Question Box,

Doctrine of the Atonement,* ' Introd.; Livius,
"The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers," pp. i-
33, Introd.; Gibbons, " The Faith of Our Fath-
ers," ch. ii. p. 30-35 )

Has not your Church, in striving to maintain
an impossible uniformity of belief, ever been the
enemy of natural science ?

How do you reconcile the teachings of your
Church with the teachings of modern science ?

The Catholic Church is not nor can she be
the enemy of science. The truths of natural
science cannot contradict the truths of revela-
tion, for the same God is the author of both.
Any apparent conflict, therefore, between
science and religion arises from the fact that
theologians have put forth their own views for
the doctrines of the Church, or scientists have
either been ignorant of the Church's teaching
or put forth unproved hypotheses for undoubted
truths. On this subject the Vatican Council
says (Sess. III. ch. iv., On Faith and Reason) :
" But although faith is above reason, there can
never be any real discrepancy between faith
and reason, since the same God who reveals
mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the
light of reason on the human mind; and God
cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever con-
tradict truth. The false appearance of such a
contradiction is mainly due, either to the dog-

Digitized by

Unity,

141

mas of faith not having been understood and
expounded according to the mind of the
Church, or to the inventions of opinion having
been taken for the verdicts of reason. We de-
fine, therefore, that every assertion contrary to
a truth of enlightened faith is utterly false."

The Catholic Church has no direct mission
to teach the truths of astronomy, biology, or
geology; her mission is to teach and defend
the revelation of God. Yet she claims the
right to proscribe all false scientific systems
which are opposed to the deposit of faith. The
true scientist, as a rule, is the most modest of
men, never claiming absolute assent to what
he knows is merely a working hypothesis for
the advance of science. But the popularizers
of science, who reach the people through the
magazines and the lecture platform, are often
the most dogmatic of men, demanding accept-
ance by all of hypotheses they themselves are
incompetent to demonstrate, and declaiming
against Christianity for refusing to swallow
wholesale their theories of a day. So the Vati-
can Council continues: "The Church, which
together with the Apostolic office of teaching,
has received a charge to guard the deposit of
faith, derives from God the right and the duty
of proscribing false science, lest any should be
deceived by philosophy and vain fallacy " (Col.
ii. 8).

Digitized by

142

The Question Box,

If men in the name of science, although with-
out its warrant, deny the existence of God and
the unity of the human race, or maintain the
evolution of man, body and soul, from the
monkey, the infallible Church of God in the
name of truth denounces them as false teachers.
But if, for example, men declare the six days
of Genesis to be long epochs, and not days of
twenty-four hours each, the Church has no
quarrel with them. They have contradicted
none of her dogmas.

As a matter of fact, the Church has ren-
dered great services to science, as we can see
from the fact that the great universities
of Italy, France, England, and Spain were
founded before the Reformation. Indeed, even
in the seventeenth century the great majority
of scientists belonged to the secular and regular
clergy. (Vaughan, " Science and Religion";
Zahm, "Science and Religion"; Zahm, "Bi-
ble, Science, and Faith"; Ronayne, "Reli-
gion and Science"; Wiseman, "Science and
Revealed Religion" ; Brennan, " What Catho-
lics have done for Science" ; Molloy, " Geol-
ogy and Revelation.")

Are not all Christians agreed on essentials ?
Why, then, worry about petty details of doctrine
or ritual?

The Catholic notion of divine faith is the

Digitized by

Unity.

\

143

acceptance of all God's truth on His divine
authority. To reject one doctrine the Son of
God taught is to give Him the lie. He did not
say to His Apostles : " Teach all nations what
you deem essential and fundamental,' ' but
"teach aia things whatsoever I have com-
manded you.M

If a friend were to relate to you an event he
had witnessed in another city, and you accepted
only what you deemed essential of his account,
you would evidently consider him guilty of
habitual lying or exaggeration. If he were a
true speaker, every word must be believed.
So with God, revealing His truth to men.
The man of faith accepts all that God has
spoken, once convinced of the fact of a reve-
lation.

The distinction of fundamental and non-
fundamental doctrines, invented by Jurieu
("I^e Vrai Syst&ne de r£glise," p. 166) to
cover in some way the evident lack of unity in
Protestantism, is without warrant in reason or
Scripture, and is useless, practically, for no
agreement has ever been reached as to what
doctrines are really fundamental.

God is the Absolute Truth. How could He,
then, declare it made no difference whether one
denomination of Christians believed in the Trin-
ity or another denied it? Whether one be-
lieved Jesus Christ to be God, and another that

Digitized by

144

The Question box.

He was only man ? Whether one believed in
the Real Presence of the Eucharist, and an-
other that the lord's supper meant mere bread
and wine ? One of each of these contradictory
statements must be false. It is not a mere ques-
tion of petty detail, but of the essential unity of
faith for which Christ prayed, "that they all
may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me and I in
Thee, that they also may be one in Us ; that
the world may believe that Thou hast sent
MeM (John xvii. 21).

The Apostles always insist upon unity of
belief in all Christ's doctrines, and the sins of
schism and heresy are classed with drunken-
ness, fornication, and murder (Gal. v. 20, 21).
"I beseech you, brethren, . • . that you
all speak the same thing, and that there be no
schism among you " (I. Cor. i. 10); "One
Lord, one faith, one . baptism ' 1 (Eph. iv. 5);
" For we being many, are one head, one body "
(I. Cor. x. 17) ; " If any one preach to you a
gospel besides that which you have received,
let him be anathema " (Gal. i. 9) ; "I beseech
you to mark them who make dissensions and
offences contrary to the doctrine which you
have learned, and to avoid them" (Rom. xvi.
17) ; * If any man come to you, and bring not
this doctrine, receive him not into the house 99
(II. John i. 10).

Indeed, the very existence of the different

Digitized by

Unity. 145

sects of Protestantism proves their differences
essential. If not, what was their reason of
being ? To-day, perhaps, these differences are
not so clearly marked, for indifferentism and
unbelief have played sad havoc with the old
doctrines, and ministers meet in synods to revise
their worn-out, human creeds.

St. Augustine in the fifth century answered
this objection with regard to the Donatists of
his day: "Both of us have baptism; in that
we are united. We have the same gospel; in
this we are also united. They celebrate with
us the feasts of martyrs ; in this we also agree.
. . . But they are not with us in all things.
They are not with us in their schism, they are
not with us in their heresy. And by reason of
those few things in which they are not with us,
the many things on which they are with us
avail them nothing' ' ("On the Unity of the
Church,' ' ch. iii.)

Are there not divisions and sects in the Catho-
lic Church — i. e., Jesuits, Dominicans, etc. —
who teach different doctrines? How, then, do
you claim unity?,

No, the religious orders in the Catholic
Church are not like the denominations of Prot-
estantism, sects with creeds of their own de-
vising. They have arisen from time to time
to answer some great need of religion, which

Digitized by

146 The Question Box.

demanded the example of a certain virtue, like
the poverty of the Franciscan, or the obedi-
ence of the Jesuit, or a special work to be done
in charity, education, missions to the pagan,
the ransom of captives, and the like. Every
order holds exactly the same beliefs ; their only
differences are in matters of opinion, in which
every Catholic is left perfectly free. A vast
difference between this and the denial of dog-
mas of faith, whereof all the Protestant sects
can plead" guilty. Cardinal Newman says on
this point : 1 4 Augustinians, Dominicans, Fran-
ciscans, Jesuits, and Carmelites have indeed
their respective homes and schools; but they
have, in spite of all that, a common school and
a common home in their Mother's bosom;
. . . but Protestants can but agree to differ.
Quarrels, stopping short of divisions, do but
prove the strength of the principle of combina-
tion ; they are the token, not of the languor but
of the vigor of its life. . . . The doctrines
of faith are the common basis of the combat-
ants, the ground on which they contend, their
ultimate authority, and their arbitrating rule"
("Diff. of Anglicans, " vol. i. Lect. x. p. 261).

Is not the bond of charity sufficient (John
xiii. 34, 35), without insisting on dogmas and
creeds ?v

The love of the brethren is indeed the corol-

Digitized by

Unity. y 147

lary of the one great commandment, the love
of God. But Christians cannot be united in
the true love of Jesus Christ, the teacher of
the revelation of God, unless they accept His
each and every teaching. ' c Without faith it is
impossible to please God M (Heb. xi. 6) ; " He-
that believeth not shall be condemned " (Mark
xvi. 16). St. Paul bases love on the unity
of faith : " Careful to keep the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and
one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of
your calling. One I*ord, one faith, one bap-
tism" (Eph. iv. 3, 6). "Be of one mind,
having the same charity, being of one accord,
agreeing in sentiment " (Phil. ii. 2).

It is ridiculous to claim unity for your
Church, Were there not three Popes at one
time? — i.e., during the Great Western Schism,
A.D. 1378-1417.

The great Schism of the West was by no
means destructive of the unity of the Church,
for no one during it ever denied the Papal
supremacy. x On the contrary, all admitted the
supreme authority of the legitimate Pope if
they could only be certain which one had the
lawful succession. It was a controversy not
about dogma, but about persons. It seems
most probable that Urban VI. was validly
elected, for during three months the cardinals

Digitized by

1 48

The Question Box.

privately and officially acknowledged him as
Pope. If so, he and his successors, Boniface
IX., Innocent VII., and Gregory XII., were
legitimate Pontiffs, and preserved the Church
in unity, although many who did not recog-
nize them were excusable because of their
good faith.

HOLINESS.

Why do you claim to be a holy Church, when
you must admit that many leaders in your
Church — popes, bishops, and priests — have been
corrupt and wicked men ? Christ said : " By their
fruits you shall know them " (Matt. vii. 16).

We readily admit that there have been a few
wicked Popes, like Stephen VII. (a.d. 896),
Benedict IX. (a.d. 1032), and Alexander VI.
(a.d. 1480), out of a long line of 258 illustrious
pontiffs, many of whom lived lives of heroic
sanctity, and even died for the faith of
Christ. There was a Judas among the twelve
Apostles. Many cardinals, bishops, and pre-
lates in high places have also been guilty
of grave moral disorders. Worldliness, pride,
avarice, lust, and drunkenness have charac-
terized some pastors of God's people, as the
history of every ex-priest from the Reformers
down to the latest scandal in the daily news-
paper clearly shows.

Digitized by

Holiness.

149

Still, to any logical mind, all outcry against
unworthy leaders or people in the Church is of
no value or force whatsoever, unless it can be
proved that their un worthiness is directly trace-
able to the doctrines, worship, devotiohs, laws,
or institutions of the Catholic Church. We
do not judge the merits of an apple-tree from
the rotten apples that lie in profusion upon
the ground beneath it, but rather by the ripe
fruit on the bough. So the Church of God
is not to be judged by the wicked who refuse
to obey her laws or follow her teachings, but
by the countless good souls who show forth
her sanctity by their faithful following of
Christ. And, indeed, every one with the
slightest knowledge of history must admit that
the Papacy, the episcopate, and the priest-
hood have been the greatest factors for the
moral and religious well-being of Christian-
ity from the beginning. The Catholic Church
can proudly point to Popes like Leo the Great,
Gregory the Great, Gregory VII., Innocent
III., Pius V., and Leo XIII.; and to Bis-
hops like Athanasius, Basil, Cyprian, Am-
brose, Augustine, Patrick, Fisher, F6nelon,
Newman, Manning, Hughes, Neumann, and
Baraga. The Catholic people by their universal
love and reverence for their priests testify to the
world their high standard of virtue and sanc-
tity. "It appears to be the testimony of

Digitized by

150 The Question Box.

history/ 9 writes Dean Maitland, "that the
monks and the clergy were in all times and
places better than other people* ' (Preface to
the "Dark Ages," p. 8).

Is not your Church the only Church that does
not demand moral character as a qualification for
membership ?

Why is it that you allow drunkards, rum-
sellers, and boodlers to be members of your
Church in good standing ? Are they in the fel-
lowship ? Why are there so many wicked, poor,
and ignorant in your Church ?

An habitual drunkard, a saloon-keeper whose
saloon is a proximate occasion of sin to him-
self or others, a thief who is enjoying stolen
property which he does not intend to restore —
these are not members in good standing, for
no unrepentant sinner is allowed to receive the
sacraments in the Catholic Church. She, how-
ever, does not pretend to be a social club for
the Slite% the outwardly respectable or the well-
to-do, for, like Christ, she is universal, with
a message for sinner and saint, rich and poor,
cultured and ignorant.

Christ came for sinners: "For the Son of
Man is come to save that which was lost"
(Matt, xviii. 11). "Iam not come to call the
just, but sinners " (Matt. ix. 13). He loved
the poor and the ignorant, and John the Bap-

Digitized by

Holiness.

151

tist was told to recognize " the preaching of
the Gospel to the poor" (Matt. xi. 5) as
one of the signs of His Messiasship. So the
Church, Christ's representative, never aban-
dons the sinner, but, like another Christ, goes
after the lost sheep that she may win them
back to the fold. 'Her priesthood, her Mass,
her sacraments, her devotions, her missions —
all are for the sinner. She is the Church
also of the poor, for at our altars all are
equal — " all are one in Christ Jesus " (Gal.
iii. 28).

I remember meeting a Unitarian minister
from Vermont in Boston, last June, who told
me that he was about to resign his ministry,
because his efforts to reach out to the poor
of his city had been met by the decided pro-
test of the rich members of his fashionable
congregation. The Church of God knows no
such distinction. How false the notion of the
Reformation, that the Church of the living
God ought to be composed merely of the elect.
Such is not the teaching of Christ, as we learn
from the parables of the cockle and the wheat
(Matt. xiii. 24-30), the net of good and bad
fish (xiii. 47), the flock of sheep and goats
(xxv. 32), the house containing vessels of honor
and vessels of dishonor (II. Tim. ii. 20). So
shall it be until the harvest come, until the
final eternal separation at the day of Judgment.

Digitized by

152

The Question Box.

Are there not many illustrious men and women
to be found in our several churches, and good
souls by the thousands striving their best to
follow the Lord Jesus? Why is it that you
Catholics claim exclusively to be "a holy
Church"?

Yes, undoubtedly, many outside the body
of the Catholic Church, and even among the
pagans, have been remarkable for their natu-
ral virtues ; and often they had supernatural
faith, hope, and charity, which they possessed
in virtue of their union with the soul of God's
Church. But the holiness of these individuals
of the several churches is not due to the sect
to which they belong, but to the Catholic
Church, many of whose teachings and prin-
ciples their sect still retains. Their errors
and schism of themselves are destructive, and
lead millions of their followers into indifferent-
ism and unbelief. To say nothing of the im-
moral heresies of early and mediaeval church
history, the principles distinctively Protestant
(thank goodness that many Protestants are bet-
ter than their principles !) do not make for holi-
ness of life.

The Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith
alone is essentially immoral, and has, in union
with the other demoralizing principle of pri-
vate judgment in matters of faith, led logi-
cally to the reaction of the common Protestant

Digitized by

Holiness,

153

creed of to-day, indifferentism or justification
by works alone\ which is only a step removed
from outright unbelief.

The most logical system of the Reformation,
Calvinism, by making God the author of sin,
utterly destroyed the very basis of morality.
No wonder that men . to-day are striving to
revise their original sixteenth century creed.

The Reformation also deprived men of many
divine aids to holiness. The Mass, which ap-
plies the merits of Christ's atonement to the
individual soul, was abolished ; the priesthood
with its apostolic mission to preach, and its
celibacy that insured a greater devotion for the
people's service, was done away with ; the
seven sacraments, which sanctified the whole
life of the Christian from his birth to the
grave, were denied for the most part, and
false views held and lax practice followed
in regard to the two (Baptism and the Lord's
Supper) they retained ; the greatest bulwark
against wickedness the world ever knew, con-
fession, was set at naught; the precepts of
fasting and abstinence, which tend so much
to the eminently Christian virtues of mortifica-
tion and self-denial, were rendered obsolete ;
the love and veneration of the Blessed Virgin
and the saints of God was strangely enough
turned to hatred, and men deprived of their
wonderful examples of every Christian virtue ;

Digitized by

154

The Question Box.

the counsels of the Saviour — poverty, chastity,
and obedience — were forgotten, and the ideal
of the religious life lost ; the beautiful symbol-
ism of the Church, which had fostered so much
the spirit of devotion by giving it outer ex-
pression, fell before the vandalism of these so-
called reformers ; in a word, Protestantism with
its denial of many of the doctrines of the gos-
pel, and its discarding of most of the means
of grace, cannot claim to be that "glorious
Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any
such thing, but that it should be holy, and
without blemish " (Eph. v. 27).

The Catholic Church claims exclusively the
mark of holiness, because her Founder is the
Lord Jesus Christ, and because she alone has
kept inviolate every dogma and every com-
mandment and counsel that He taught. She
has kept from the beginning all the means
of grace and sanctity wherewith Christ en-
dowed her — the Mass, the seven sacraments,
and prayer. She holds up to her children the
example of the Saviour, and His perfect fol-
lowers, the saints ; she urges the sinner to
repent, promising him the mercy and love of
God in the sacraments of penance and the
Eucharist ; she encourages them to read the
Scriptures and other devout books, like the
"Imitation of Christ," and to listen as fre-
quently as possible to the Word of God ; her

Digitized by

Holiness.

155

laws of fasting, abstinence, attendance at Sun-
day Mass, and yearly confession and com-
munion, help wonderfully to encourage the
spirit of devotion and self-denial. Only in her
fold are the Gospel Counsels followed by thou-
sands of devout souls, whose zeal and charity
are written large in the history of Christian
civilization. A great multitude of saints be-
long to her — men and women of every race and
country, who Kved lives of heroic sanctity
and proved, by their miracles to be blessed by
God.

Why is it that the Catholic nations, like Italy
and Spain, axe less prosperous and progressive
than Protestant nations, like England, Germany,
and the United States ?

Why is it the Catholic nations are so much in.
ferior to the Protestant in the scale of civilization?

It seems to many Protestants that one of
the most conclusive arguments against the
Catholic Church is the present material pros-
perity of certain Protestant nations. I do not
believe that lectures are ever given to non-
Catholics in our country without this objection
being presented in some form or other. And
yet it is the old pagan difficulty answered in
the fifth century by St. Augustine ; it is the
pagan scoff of the apostate Emperor Julian.

Jesus Christ never made wealth or material

Digitized by

156

The Question Box.

greatness a mark of His true Church. On the
contrary, from His words a student of the
Scriptures would draw a totally different con-
clusion. He declares that no man can serve
God and Mammon (Matt. vi. 24), and de-
nounces riches as one of the greatest obstacles
to the Kingdom of Heaven: "Woe to you
that are rich ; for you have your consolation M
(Luke vi. 24) ; "It is easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle, than for a
rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven M
(Matt. xix. 24) ; " My kingdom is not of this
world " (John xviii. ^36); "What doth it
profit a man if he gain the whole world, and
suffer the loss of his own soul?" (Matt,
xvi. 26).

The falsity of the argument of national pros-
perity as a mark of the divine favor is at once
shown, when we observe in the course of his-
tory, pagan, Catholic, and Protestant nations
alike standing out pre-eminently in worldly
greatness. Must we blasphemously declare
that the unchangeable God of truth approves
of different religions in turn, no matter what
irrational or immoral doctrines they hold?
Egypt, Assyria, Greece, Rome — all were once
mighty and prosperous nations. Were the
Jews under the slavery of Pharao, or the
early Christians who worshipped in the under-
ground catacombs of Rome, professors of a

Digitized by

Holiness.

157

false religion because at the time not blessed
with worldly goods?

Again, the criterion works both ways. Was
the Catholic Church true when Spain ruled
the world at the beginning of the sixteenth
century, and false when she to-day no longer
claims a place among the first powers of Europe?
Was the Protestantism of Holland true in the
seventeenth century, when she did the carry-
ing trade of Europe, and false now in the period
of her decline?

If we apply the argument to an individual,
we can at once grasp its inanity. Mr. A. of
New York is worth some hundreds of millions
of dollars ; therefore he is the best man in the
United States ! We may find some of our mil-
lionaires good Christian men, but we do not
find that as a class the very wealthy neces-
sarily stand forth as pre-eminent in the Chris-
tian virtues of self-denial, humility, meekness,
purit}', honesty, and the like.

There are many factors that go towards mak-
ing a country wealthy and prosperous; but
they are due rather to natural resources, the
energy, intelligence and economy, and often
thievery, of individuals — rather than to re-
ligion.

The instituting of a comparison between
Catholicity and Protestantism as a civilizing
force is a most difficult undertaking, for there,

Digitized by

158 The Question Box.

are many factors to be considered. A, man
must have a perfect grasp of what is meant
by the term civilization; he mttst consider it
in its various aspects, economic, social, politi-
cal, moral, and religious ; he must take into
account all the influences that favor or retard
it, viz.: climatic and racial conditions ; he must
take a period when Catholicity or Protestant-
ism is still a living, vital force, and know well
the proportion of Catholics, Protestants, and
infidels in a country ; he must appreciate well
the fact that nations, like individuals, have
their time of birth, growth, and decay. Men
may speak of the United States as a Prot-
estant country; and yet if one were to
count the church-going Christians, the Catho-
lic Church could readily claim half the num-
ber. There are undoubtedly more indifferent-
ists than Protestants in these United States.
According to our questioner's logic, our na-
tional prosperity then is due to our infidelity,
and not to the country's natural wealth, and
the sturdiness of the American character.

However, Catholics are glad to challenge
any comparison when it comes to morality and
religion. In this regard we strongly com-
mend to our non-Catholic friends the chapters
on education, pauperism, crime, drunkenness,
suicide, illegitimacy, prostitution, divorce, etc.,
in that interesting volume of Father Alfred

Digitized by

Holiness.

159

Young, " Catholic and Protestant Countries
Compared,' * Catholic Book Exchange, New
York, 189$. We are perfectly willing that
the statistics on these lhatters should be care-
fully considered. (Read also Balmes, " Catho*
licity and Protestantism Compared"; J. S.
Vaughan, " Faith and Pony," pp. 432-466;
Ricards, "Catholic Christianity and Modem
Unbelief," ch. xiv. p. 277; Spalding, "Es-
says," p. 156; Schanz, "A Christian Apol-
ogy," vol. iii. ch. xv.; "The Church and
Civilization.")

Does not your Church teach that it is lawful
to lie to Protestants?

How can we " heretics" believe any state-
ment you may make, when one of your funda-
mental teachings, as set forth in the Council of
Constance, declares that " Faith need not be
kept with heretics 99 ? Was not the safe-conduct
granted by this council to John Huss violated
on this very principle?

The Catholic Church never taught that it
was lawful to lie or break faith with any one.
She has alw&ys considered lying as intrinsically
evil, according to the eighth commandment :
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against
thy neighbor." An honest inquirer after truth
has merely to read the words of the decree
(cited by Alzog, " Universal Church History,"

Digitized by

160 The Question Box.

vol. iii. p. 964) to recognize the utter .dis-
honesty of the above accusation. This false
principle was preached and acted on by Protest-
ants in Ireland after the treaty of Limerick
in 1691.

This calumny has been refuted time and
time again, as by Iyethmathius in 1544, Copus
in 1 58 1, Campion in 1585, Molanus in 161 1, Ros-
weidt and Sweert in 1608, 1609, 161 1, Becanus
in 1612, Marquez in 1645, etc. iff. Hergenrother,
"Church and State," Essay xvi.; Jungmann,
"Church History," vi. p. 339; Hefele, "His-
tory of the Councils," vol. vii. p. 767, cited
in the Catholic University Bulletin, July, 1896,
pp. 380, 381).

The Council of Constance never granted a
safe-conduct to John Huss. The Emperor Sig-
ismund did, but his letter was merely a pass-
port commending Huss to all the officials of
the empire in order to assure him protection
from violence on his way to the Council. It
by no means protected him from the due course
of the law of the empire, which in the fifteenth
century regarded heresy as a civil offence pun-
ishable by death. This is evident from the
safe-conduct itself, the address of the Bohe-
mian nobles of the council, and the letter of
Sigismund to the King of Aragon on this very
point (Alzog, "Church Hist.," vol. iii. pp.
952-967).

Digitized by

Holiness,

161

What is the attitude of your Church on the
temperance question?

How can you explain the fact that so large a
proportion of liquor dealers are regular, atten-
dants of your Church, in good standing? Are
they not responsible for most of the sin and mis-
ery of the present time? They are not on the
books of any Protestant Church.

The Catholic Church regards intemperance
as a great vice, which carries in its train many
other sins, such as anger, blasphemy, neglect
of Mass and the sacraments, murder, lust,
theft. Catholics realize that the drink evil is
the fruitful cause of pauperism, insanity, dis-
ease, death, corruption in citizenship, and the
destruction of home life.

The Church declares temperance, or modera-
tion in the use of drink, binding upon all
under penalty of sin. She declares total ab-
stinence binding upon all who find in drink
the proximate occasion of sin, as is the case
with the habitual drunkard. She counsels
total abstinence to all for four reasons: first,
As a protest against a public abuse in our
country ; second, As an example to the weaker
brethren (Rom. xiv. 21) ; third, As a practice
of self-denial ; fourth, As a reparation for the
sins committed by the drunkard.

The mind of the Church can be seen from the
words of the Bishops of the United States in

Digitized by

The Question Box.

the Second Council of Baltimore, 1866, No. 470 :
" Since the very worst scandals owe their ori-
gin to excess in drink, we exhort pastors, and
we implore them for the love of Jesus Christ,
to devote all their energies to the extirpation
of the vice of intemperance. To that end we
deem worthy of praise the zeal of those who,
the better to guard against excess, pledge
themselves to total abstinence " ; No. 469:
" Let pastors frequently warn their flocks to
shun saloons, and let them repel from the Sac-
raments liquor-dealers who encourage the
abuses of drink, especially on Sunday.' '

The Third Council of Baltimore, held in
1884, declares, No. 263 : " We admonish
Catholics engaged in the sale of intoxicating
liquors to consider seriously how many and
how great are the dangers and the occasions
of sin which their business, though not in it^
self illicit, is surrounded. Let them, if pos-
sible, choose some more honorable way of
making a living. And if they find it impossi-
ble to quit it, then let them strive with all their
might to remove the occasions of sin from them-
selves and from others. Let them not sell
drink either to minors, or to those who they
foresee will go to excess. Let them keep
their saloons closed on the lord's day. Let
them at no time permit on their premises blas-
phemy, cursing, or obscene language. Bittt if

Digitized by

Holiness.

163

through their action, or with their co-opera-
tion, religion is dishonored and men are led to
ruin, let them remember that there is an
Avenger in heaven, who will certainly de-
mand of them a terrible retribution."

A Catholic saloon-keeper, whose saloon is
evidently an occasion of sin to others, is not a
Catholic in good standing. For although he
may attend Sunday Mass, he cannot approach
the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist ■
until he promise amendment. Membership
with us, however, does not mean enrollment
on the church's books, but is a right God-
given in the sacrament of baptism. No matter
how low a man may have fallen, the Church
is always ready, like Christ, to go after the
lost sheep of the house of Israel, Public ex-
communication is a penalty she rarely em*
ploys*

Do the Jesuits teach that a good end justifies a
bad means?

No ; although this calumny is repeated time
and' time again despite its frequent refutation.
It is evident that those who make this charge
are ignorant of the very first principles of Catho-
lic ethics, unless we are to ascribe their false
statements to downright malice. The teach-
ing of Catholic theology is plain : If a man per-
form & good action for a bad purpose, or a bad

Digitized by

The Question Box,

action for a good purpose, his conduct in both
instances is immoral. Conduct, to be good,
always presupposes two conditions*: first, that
conscience declare the act good in itself ; and
second, that it declare the intention good with
which it is performed. Thus, Clement VII. did
not grant a divorce to Henry VIII., even
though its granting might have saved England
to the Church, for divorce is contrary to the
law of Christ; or again, the Catholic Church
absolutely forbids craniotomy, even though a
physician might declare it the saving of a
mothers life. We challenge, therefore, our ob-
jector to bring forward one passage from any
approved theologian— Jesuit or not — who main-
tains that a good end justifies a bad means.

We hold, on the contrary, that this was a
principle of Martin Luther. He with other Re-
formers allowed the Landgrave of Hesse to have
two wives, the better to be continent, and
again urged him to deny publicly that Margaret
von Sala was his real wife, to avoid scandal.
Here plainly we find polygamy and lying justi-
fied ; and the principle set forth that it is law-
ful to do evil that good may come. (Verres,
"Life of Luther,' ' ch. xxi. pp. 312 et seq.)

Frequently in this country and abroad the
Jesuits and Catholic laymen have offered thou-
sands of dollars to the Protestant who could
produce one Jesuit author who had given utter-

Digitized by

Mental Reservation. 165

ance to this false teaching. The challenge has
never been accepted save to the discomfiture
of the challenger, as in one instance of its ac-
ceptance at the University of Heidelburg in
1872. Littledale's statement in the " Encyclo-
paedia Britannica," vol. xiii. p. 661, is a mali-
cious calumny, as any one can see by consult-
ing any Jesuit theologian {American Catholic
Quarterly , 1888, p. 119).

MENTAL, RESERVATION.

How can Catholics ever be trusted in view of
your doctrine of mental reservations ?

Does the Catholic Church teach absolute truth-
fulness in all things, small and great?

The essence of a lie consists in saying the
contrary of what is thought, and every lie
necessarily implies the will to deceive. The
1 unanimous teaching of Catholic theologians
from and before the time of St. Augustine has
been that a lie is intrinsically and absolutely
evil, as opposed to the very nature of man and
society. No reason can ever justify it.

A. mental reservation, or restriction, is the
limitation of an affirmative or negative. If not
verbally expressed, it can be either known by
the circumstances or else it is purely mental.
A purely mental reservation being equivalent

Digitized by

1 66 The Question Bex.

to a lie, is never lawful. Reservation not pure-
ly mental— 'that is, equivocation — is in general
forbidden, because language is intended to ex-
press thoughts, not to hide them. It is, how-
ever, allowed for a just cause, in virtue of the
principle of morals, that we can lawfully per-
form'an act having two effects, the one good
and the other evil, whenever the good effect is
paramount to the bad. Thus, a servant could
say to a visitor whom her mistress did not want
to receive, " Not at home," or a priest or any
professional man when asked a secret could
answer, (<I do not know"; in both instances
the limiting of the negation can be gathered
from the circumstances. Surely the Catholic
teaching is much moire strict than that of Prot-
estant writers and theologians, such as Melanc-
thon, Bodin, Gentilis, Grotius, Pufendorf,
Heineccius, Cocceius, Jeremy Taylor, John^-
son, Paley, and others, who permit lying when
the person addressed has no right to the truth.
Are we, then, to distrust Protestants in view of
this lax teaching?

No sensible man can deny the lawfulness of
mental reservations once he understands our
teaching. It is witnessed to in the Gospels.
Our I^ord said that He would not go up to the
Holy City on the feast-day, not wishing to go
there publicly with His disciples, but after-
wards in secret (John vii. 8, 10) ; He said

Digitized by

Mental Reservation. 167

again that He knew not the day of the judg-
ment, implying that He was not at liberty to
disclose it (Mark xjii. 32).

Why are Catholics so superstitious?

I know Catholics who think a scapular will
save them from drowning, a miraculous medal
in a house will prevent it from burning, the
swallowing of a picture-stamp will cure a per-
son better than medicines, etc. Ip this not super-
stition?

Is it sinful to consult fortune-tellers ?
Do Catholics believe in dreams ?

Catholics regard superstition as undoubtedly a
sin against the first commandment, and therefore
on principle are less apt to be superstitious
than the average Protestant or infidel.

Superstition consists in ascribing to certain
things or happenings a power they do not pos-
sess, naturally or supernaturally.

It is superstition to consider Friday an un-
lucky day, to regard thirteen at table as pro-
phetical of evil, to carry about with one a lucky
coin, to read dream books to interpret the future,'
to consult fortune-tellers, palmists, and other
charlatans, and the like.

It is not superstition in Catholics to wear
medals, crosses, or scapulars blessed by the*
Church of God (I. Tim. iv. 5), thereby calling
to mind Christ Jesus,. His Mother, and the

Digitized by

1 68 The Question Box.

saints; but if one were to attribute to these
sacred articles powers they do not possess, then
he is guilty of superstition.

" We clutch eagerly," writes Father Tyrrell,
"at a miraculous medal, a girdle, an infallible
prayer, a scapular, a novena, a pledge, a vow —
all helps, in their way, all excellent if used
rightly as stimulants to greater exertion; but
if adopted as substitutes for labor, for the eter-
nally necessary and indispensable means, then,
no longer helps, but most hurtful supersti-
tions" ("External Religion," pp. 89-90).

Pagan peoples, lacking the knowledge of the
one true God, are naturally superstitious, at-
tributing wonderful power to idols of wood and
stone, wearing amulets to protect themselves
against disease and death, invoking spirits by
magical formulae, etc. In our own day, the
pagan augurs, astrologers, and medicine men
have their counterpart in the modern super-
stitions born of a decadent Protestantism, spir-
itism, Christian Science, theosophy, palmistry,
and the like. Unbelief, craving for the truth
of God it does not possess, naturally finds satis-
faction in various superstitious beliefs and
practices.

What do you think of the "Monita Secreta "
of the Jesuits?

The 1 1 Monita Secreta is a deliberate, calum-

Digitized by

Catholicity.

nious forgery, published for the first time trr*
1612 at Cracovia, Poland, and probably written
by the apostate Jesuit, Jerome Zaorowski. It
was condemned by the Congregation of the In-
dex at Rome in 1616 as an impudent forgery,
and conclusively proved to be so by the Jesuit
Fathers Gretser (a. d. 1617) and Huylenbrowcq
(a. d. 1713). It has been edited many times
by the enemies of the Jesuits — 1662, 1669, 1702,
1 719, 1761 — although many opponents of the
Church, like Paulus and Huber, grant that it is
not authentic. It is on a par with the false
encyclicals published by the A. P. A. in the
United States some ten years since, and ac-
cepted by the stupid and ignorant as genuine.
Error is naturally driven to defend itself by
calumny and lying.

CATHOLICITY.

Why do Catholics make exclusive claim to the
title of Catholic? We Protestants claim the
name in like manner, for we say in the Apos-
tles1 Creed: "I believe in the Catholic, ue.>
Christian Church."

Are not Protestants everywhere in the world
to-day spreading the gospel of the Christ?

Who are the more numerous to-day, Catholics
qr Protestants?

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was a catho-

Digitized by Google

170

The Question Box.

lie, or universal, teacher of the divine revela-
tion. His gospel was not merely for the Jews
of Palestine in the first century, but for all
times and places. The Church that represents
Him, therefore, must also be a catholic, or
universal, teacher of divine revelation. She
must bear upon her brow the stamp of uni-
versality, and by her extension in time and
place ever stand forth pre-eminently as the
one unchanging faith the Saviour taught.
This is shown plainly in the Scriptures, (i)
She is catholic in time : "Behold I am with
you all days even to the consummation of the
world* ' (Matt, xxviii. 20); "The gates of
hell shall not prevail against it* '.(Matt. xvi.
18). (2) She is catholic territorially : "Teach
ye all nations" (Matt, xxviii. 19) ; "Go ye
into the whole world, and preach the gospel to
every creature" (Mark xvi. 15; Gen. xii. 3;
xxvi. 4 ; xxviii. 14 ; Ps. ii. 8'; xxi. 28 ; lxxi.
8; Isa. ii. 2; xlix. 6; Mai. \\ n ; Acts i. 8;
Rom. i. 5 ; I. Tim. ii. 4-6). (3) She is catho-
lic in unity of all doctrine: "Teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I thave com*
mandectyou " (Matt, xxviii. 20).

Catholicity as a distinctive mark of the
Church of Christ does not mean that she must
exist in every country of the world at once,
but that she have within her the germ of growth
and development, which in the course of the

Digitized by

Catholicity.

171

centuries no human power can ever success-
fully retard. She must ever be a missionary
Church, and though by heresy and schism
many may go forth from her (I. John ii. 19),
she will as a matter of fact be far more numer-
ous than any, and stand forth with so universal
a unity of government, doctrine, and the means
of grace as to witness to her unique claim
of teacher of lie complete gospel of Jesus
Christ.

Protestantism can never claim the title of
Catholic, for it is built on the disintegrating
principle of private judgment, every man discuss-
ing at will the meaning of a mysterious Bible,
of which he possesses no certain interpretation.
The germ of error, discord, contradiction, and
denial is within the bosom of Protestantism, and
therefore its tendency is neither to maintain
Christianity nor to spread it in the universal
unity which it should possess. Again, Protest-
antism is not Catholic in time, for it did not
dawn upon- the world until the sixteenth cen-
tury, and we need more than the mere word of
men of the stamp of Luther, Calvin, Henry x
VIII., or Knox to bridge the chasm that divides
them from the beginning. The denominations
are known by the name of their founders, who,
without any commission, assumed to ljave
unearthed a forgotten gospel ; they are over
1,500 years too late to be in any sense Catholic.

Digitized by

172

The Question Box.

Nor is it Catholic territorially, for, strange
enough, for over two hundred years it
manifested no missionary spirit whatsoever,
but, identified with the princes upon whose
favor it flourished and grew, it kept with-
in national and local lines, caring nothing
for the pagan in distant lands. And in our
day, when Protestantism has reached out its
hand to the pagan, its success has been
ridiculously small, as its own ministers tes-
tify, despite the expenditure of many millions,
and the distribution of countless copies of
the Bible (Marshall's " Christian Missions";
Canon Taylor, Fortnightly Review, Oct., 1888;
Dublin Review, Jan., 1889 ; Nineteenth Century \
July, 1888).

Nor is it Catholic in matters of doctrine, for
the various denominations deny many doctrines
of Christ's gospel. Each voices a different
interpretation of His teaching, and allows,
even within the limits of one sect, all manner
of doctrine, from the denial of such elementary
Christian teachings as the Trinity and the In-
carnation to the holding of all the doctrines
of the Catholic Church minus Papal infallibil-
ity. Since the Reformation the tendency has
ever been towards infidelity, and the average
Protestant to-day indignantly repudiates the
teachings of Luther or Calvin, and frequently
is an indifferentist in matters of belief.

Digitized by

Catholicity.

173

On the other hand, the Catholic Church is
Catholic in time, for she goes back to the be-
ginning, and no man can trace any other origin
for her than Jesus Christ and His Apostles.

She is Catholic territorially, for there is
nothing local in her constitution. She is just
as much at home in a republic as in a mon-
archy ; she has her message for the cultured
American or the barbarian of mid- Africa ; she
ministers to the multi-millionnaire and then to
the poor of the tenement-house ; she speaks to
the greatest saint and to the most degraded
sinner. Like Christ, she is for all men, for all
places. A striking illustration of her uni-
versal jurisdiction was the Vatican Council
in 1870.

She is Catholic in doctrine, for although
growing and developing as Providence guides
her, making new definitions of old doc-
trines as new errors arise to confuse the
minds of men and render clearer statements
necessary — she is ever the same unchanging
Church, guarding infallibly the divine deposit
of the one gospel of Christ, under the divine
guarantee of the abiding presence of Christ
(Matt, xxviii. 20) and the Holy Spirit (John
xiv. 17).

Catholics are more .numerous to-day than
Protestants, although in this matter exact sta-
tistics are difficult to obtain. I quote some

Digitized by

174

The Question Box.

authorities cited by Tanquery (" Synopsis
TheoL Dog.," vol. L pp. 419, 420):

Catholics. Protestants* Greeks.

O.Werner (Cath.),
Orbis Terrarum

Catholicus, . 230,000,000 215,000,000
The Bible Atlas

(Prot.), , , . 172,000,000 208,000,000
Behm & Wagner

(Prot.) (Schaff,

Erzog, Encyc,

p. 2058), . . . 215,938,500 130,329,000 84,007,000
Tablet (Oct 17.

1885), .... 275,000,000
Groffier (Cath.?),

Planisphere

d e s R e 1 i-

gions, .... 212,100,000 123,800,000 83,810,000

Why do you deny us Episcopalians the title of
Catholic ? We claim to be Anglo-Catholics, not
Roman Catholics.

Is not the Established Church of England one
and the same with the Church that existed in
England prior to the Reformation ?

Did not the early English Church deny the
supreme jurisdiction of the Roman See ?

Catholics deny that Episcopalians have any
claim whatsoever to the title of Catholic, for at
the time of the Reformation they broke away
from the centre of Catholic unity ; denied the
Papal Supremacy, always recognized by their

Digitized by Google

Catholicity.

175

forefathers, to acknowledge the spiritual su-
premacy of the sovereign; denied many fun-
damental Catholic doctrines; abolished the
ancient Catholic discipline; proscribed utterly
the Catholic liturgy, and in a word became
Protestants of the Protestants.

It is not difficult to prove that the Church of
England prior to the Reformation was in union
with all Christendom, Roman Catholic in gov-
ernment, doctrine, and ritual, and that it un-
derwent an essential change in all of these
when it became by law established under the
Tudor sovereigns.

The spiritual supremacy of the Pope was
never denied in England until the time of
Jlenry VIII. It is undoubted history that the
Archbishops of Canterbury, the Primates of the
English Church, were not recognized until
their appointment had been confirmed by the
Pope ; at their consecration and investiture
with the pallium, which the Pope sent as a
symbol of their jurisdiction (Protestant Bishop
Stubbs, "Constitutional History," vol. iii. p.
305), they swore (t to defend the Roman Papacy
against all men, to obey the commands of the
Holy See with their whole strength, and to
cause them to be obeyed by others" (Rymer's
" Fcedera," vol. vi. p. 80, ed. 1741). In their
letters they continually call themselves the
tf Legates of the Apostolic See" and declare

Digitized by

1/6

T/ie Question Box.

"their service and obedience" to the Roman
Pontiff (Letter of Archbishop Chicheley to Mar-
tin V., 1426 a.d.; Haddan and Stubbs, "Ecc.
Councils/ ' iii. 448, 541).

The English Bishops before the Reformation
were never recognized without the Pope's con-
firmation, and as a rule were directly appointed
by him. The oath at their consecration ran as
follows: "I will be faithful and obedient to
Blessed Peter and the Roman Church, and to

my Lord the Pope N , so help me God and

these God's holy Gospels." Again, all im-
portant cases of trial were referred by the
Bishops to Rome as the Supreme Court of Ap-
peal (Stubbs, " Con$t. Hist.," vol. iii. p. 315),
and its jurisdiction continually recognized by
the appeals of various kings regarding episco-
pal appointments, by their applying for dispen-
sations (Edward the Confessor in favor of West-
minster, Henry VII. to be freed from his Cru-
sade promise, Henry VII. to marry within the
prohibited degrees), the acceptance of papal
excommunications and interdicts, the receiving
of Papal legates, the presence of English
Bishops in councils called by the Pope, etc.
Sixty-eight Archbishops succeeded St. Augus-
tine in the See of Canterbury, each one of
whom received the pallium from Rome. We
know full well that there were many protests to
Rome against the appointment of foreigners to

Digitized by

Catholicity.

177

English benefices, the demands of money made
by the Papal court, and the interference of some
Popes in the civil affairs of England. But
while questioning some of the feudal rights of
the Pope, the English kings and people never
for an instant questioned his spiritual suprema-
cy. They held with the Venerable Bede (Hist.,
lib. ii. c. i.) that "the Pope (Gregory) was
invested with the first, i.e., supreme pontificate
in the whole world, and was set over the
Churches converted to the true faith, making
our nation, till then given up to idols, the
Church of Christ.' '

From the sixth to the sixteenth century the
Catholic Church in England flourished and
grew, as every other part of Christendom, in
union with Rome. Under Henry VIII., for
the first time in her history, did England deny
the supremacy of the Pope, and cut itself off
from the body of Christendom. This monarch,
having tried for a long time to persuade Pope
Clement VII. to annul his marriage with Queen
Catherine that he might marry his mistress,
Anne Boleyn, determined to take the law in his
own hands, and constitute himself supreme by
act of Parliament. " By the Act of Supremacy,
authority in all matters ecclesiastical was vested
solely in the Crown. The courts spiritual be-
came as thoroughly the King's courts as the
temporal courts at Westminster. The statute

Digitized by

178

The Question Box.

ordered (1534) that the King 'shall be taken,
accepted, and reputed the only supreme head
on earth of the Church of England, and shall
have and enjoy, annexed and united to the
Imperial Crown of this realm, as well the title
and state thereof as all the honors, jurisdic-
tions, authorities, immunities, profits, and com-
modities to the said dignity belonging, with
full power to visit, repress, redress, reform, and
amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, con-
tempts, and enormities, which by any manner
of spiritual authority or jurisdiction might or
may lawfully be reformed ' " (Green's " History
of the English People,' ' vol. ii. book v. p. 159,
Harper's edition).

By this act the national Church of England
came into existence, and the Tudor sovereigns
and their parliaments became the origin of
church jurisdiction and the arbiters of church
doctrine and ritual. The idea of the Church
as a kingdom, independent, sovereign, catholic,
and supernatural was for ever lost, and a reli-
gious body under the government of the sove-
reign came into existence dependent, national,
and natural. It had no living voice, for it had
ceased to be the divine institution of Jesus
Christ. This essential change in government
placed the Church of England in unmistakable
schism, and forfeited at once the title of this
state establishment to the term Catholic. Men

Digitized by

Catholicity.

1 79

like Sir Thomas More, the Chancellor of Eng-
land, and Henry's preceptor, Bishop Fisher of
Rochester, recognized this at once, and died on
the scaffold, rather than, as More said in his
famous defence, "to conform my conscience to
the counsel of one kingdom against the general
consent of all Christendom.' *

Under Edward VI., who claimed the same
supremacy, another step was made towards the
Protestantization of the Church of England,
by the change in doctrine and ritual evidenced
by the Book of Common Prayer (1548), the
forty-two articles (1553), the new catechism,
and the book of homilies, all of which were
markedly Protestant in tone (Green, ibid.,
pp. 226, 233, 234). All the altars in the
churches were removed by order of the Royal
Council, and communion tables substituted, the
object being expressly stated, "to move the
people from the superstitions of the Popish
Mass unto the right use of the Lord's Supper."
Repealed under Mary, these statutes of the
Royal Supremacy were re-enacted under Eliza-
beth by the Parliament of 1558 (Green, ibid.,
P* 3°3)« England became Protestant, a new
Protestant hierarchy being substituted for the
old Catholic Bishops. Elizabeth exacted the
oath, of supremacy which no Catholic could
lawfully take, enforced the Act of Uniformity
in a public worship which no Catholic could

Digitized by

180 The Question Box.

conscientiously attend, and made (1563) thirty-
nine of the Calvinistic articles drawn up under
Edward VI. the standard of faith of the Eng-
lish Protestant clergy (Green, ibid., p. 343).

Strange, therefore, that to-day many High-
Churchmen in England and in this country
repudiate Protestantism and the Reformation,
and, ignoring the facts of history and the anti-
Catholic denials of the teaching authority of
the Church, transubstantiation, the Mass, the
seven sacraments, purgatory, devotion to the
Blessed Virgin and the saints, etc., claim the
name of Catholic. But their claim is merely
based on the frail foundation of Protestant
private judgment, and is denied by the major-
ity of their brethren, the other denominations
of Protestantism, the Greek schismatics, and
the Catholic Church. Imagine a governor of
one of these United States denying the presi-
dency of Mr. Roosevelt, and setting up a con-
stitution directly opposed to the fundamental
principles and ideals of the American Repub-
lic, and yet withal claiming to be a vital part
thereof, and you have an idea of the imagin-
ary theory of a minority of the Church of
England, which, denying the primacy of the
, and setting up a doctrinal constitution
directly opposed to the fundamental teachings
of the universal Church, is still declared to be
art of the Catholic Church.

by Google

Catholicity.

181

How, indeed, after three hundred years of
insistence on their Protestantism, and the en-
actment of penal laws of the severest kind
against Catholic doctrine and practice, can any
member of the Established Church of England
who subscribes to the Thirty- nine Articles
which evidence the essential Protestantism of
their framers, claim with any show of probability
the title of Catholic ? The very oath that re-
mains in the coronation service of the English
sovereign, "to defend the reformed religion," is
proof conclusive against any such claim.

In the United States, moreover, the official
title of the Episcopalians is "the Protestant
Episcopal Church of America," despite many
protest$ of High- Churchmen in synod aften
synod (Catholic Truth Society publications).

When was the word Catholic first used?
When Protestant?

Does not the word Roman localize your Church
and plainly deny it as the Catholic Church ? Is
not Roman-Catholic a contradiction in terms?

The Church of Christ has been called Catho-
lic as early as the beginning of the second cen-
tury or the end of the first. St. Ignatius
Martyr in his letter to the people of Smyrna
(n. 8) says: "Where the bishop is, there let
the multitude of believers be ; even as where
Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

Digitized by

1 82 The Question Box.

It has ever since been the name oi the Chttrch
founded by Jesus Christ, and although for thou-
sands of years others have endeavored to usurp
the name, they have done so despite the pro-
test of the Catholic Church, and even of the
great majority of their own members, as, for in-
stance, the High-Church Episcopalians of our
day- St. Augustine wrote in the fifth century :
"The name itself of the Catholic Church
keeps me— a name which, in the midst of so
many heresies, this Church alone has, not with-
out cause, so held possession of as that, though
all heretics would fam have themselves called
Catholics, yet to the inquiry of any stranger,
* Where is the Assembly of the Catholic Church
held ? 9 no heretic would dare point out his own
basilica or house " (Contra Ep. Manich. Fund.,
n. 5).

The name Protestant is derived from the
protest of the Lutheran princes of Germany
against the principles of liberty and toleration
set forth as a basis of agreement by the Catho-
lic princes at the Diet of Spires in 1529. These
articles maintained liberty of worship, and at
the same time deprived the Protestants of their
power to plunder and persecute Catholics. To
this they would not agree. No wonder, there-
fore, that the mild Melancthon styled this pro-
test "a terrible deed" ("Eine Schreckliche
That"), for it cost Germany a civil war, ifi

Digitized by

Catholicity.

i»3

which she lost over half her population. And
yet men say that the Reformation stood for
liberty.

The term Roman Catholic is by no means
a contradiction in terms, as some have erro-
neously declared, but simply affirms that the
Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Bishop of Rome,
is the chief Bishop and head of the whole
Church, and only those under his jurisdic-
tion are within the one true fold of the
Saviour. No one is a Catholic who is not a
Roman Catholic. The terms are identical and
interchangeable. The adjective Roman mere-
ly accentuates the fact of the vital character
of Christianity, having a local government on
earth, whose head is the Bishop of Rome.

Why do Catholics take offence at the words
Romish or Romanist?

Because the name of their Church is "The
Catholic Church/' or "The Roman Catholic
Church,' * and the words Romish and Romanist
are used by her enemies in an insulting sense.
In the same way an Italian would object to
the word "dago," or a German to the word
"Dutchman." The standard dictionary says
of these words: "Romish — Used by Prot-
estants, and generally indicating disesteem."
"Romanist — A term used chiefly by those
whose views are adverse to that Church."

Digitized by

The Question Box.

In what does the Greek Church differ from the
Catholic Church ? Was not the Greek Church the
first Church?

In points of doctrine the Greek Church
denies the primacy and infallibility of the
Pope, the procession of the Holy Spirit from
the Father and the Son, the Immaculate Con-
ception, and allows divorce in case of adul-
tery. There are also some differences of dis-
cipline, v. g., the use of leavened bread in the
Eucharist, the permission of priests to marry.
The Greek Church, therefore, is guilty of both
heresy and schism.

Until the middle of the ninth century the
Greek Church was in communion with the
Roman Pontiff. The natural antipathy of the
Greeks to the Latins, the many differences in
ecclesiastical discipline, the close alliance of
the Papacy and the Empire of the West, and
Constantinople's jealousy of the power of the
Roman See, prepared the way for the schism
of the ninth century.

It began in a.d. 858, when the Greek Empe-
ror, Michael the Drunkard, at the instigation of
his profligate uncle, Bardas, banished Ignatius,
the patriarch of Constantinople, and intruded
the layman Photius in his place. Bardas had
been angered by the patriarch's protest against
his incest and impiety, and his public refusal
of Holy Communion ; the Emperor was dis-

Digitized by

Catholicity.

185

pleased because Ignatius refused to give the
veil to the unwilling Theodora, the Emperor's
mother, and her daughters.

The consecration of Photius was uncanoni-
cal, because Ignatius still remained the lawful
patriarch; and the consecrator, Gregory of
Syracuse, was at the time under sentence of
deposition and excommunication. Everything
possible was done to secure the approbation of
Pope Nicholas I., as, for example, an embassy
to Rome, the bribery of the Papal legates sent
to Constantinople, lying letters, forged decrees,
and the like. But after a thorough investiga-
tion, the Pope declared Ignatius the rightful
patriarch, and deposed Photius as a usurper
(a.d. 863).

Photius, however, through the influence of
the Emperor, retained his power, and in 867
convoked a synod of his own at Constanti-
nople, which pretended to anathematize and
depose the Pope. Twenty-two venal bishops
signed the decrees, and to give some dignity to
the proceedings Photius forged scores of other
names. Soon after Photius wrote a letter to the
Eastern bishops, denouncing the Latins, and
broaching the heresy regarding the procession
of the Holy Spirit.

The Emperor Basil, who succeeded Michael,
for political reasons deposed Photius and rein-
stated Ignatius, besides asking the Pope to

Digitized by

The Question Box.

annul the decrees of the schismatic synod
held by Photius. Hadrian II. (867-872)
finally brought about the union of Greeks and
Latins at the Eighth General Council of Con-
stantinople, a.d. 869.

In 878 Photius again usurped the patri-
archate, and, although excommunicated in
turn by Pope John VIII., Marinus I., and
Hadrian III., he retained his power until the
accession of the Emperor Leo VI. (886), who
banished him. From the death of Photius
(891) until 1054 the patriarchs of Constanti-
nople remained in communion with the Holy
See, although the relations were never cordial.

The final break occurred under the Emperor
Michael Cerularius (a.d. 1043-1059), who,
after refusing to submit, was solemnly excom-
municated by the Papal legates <sent to Con-
stantinople by Leo IX. (a.d. 1054). Although
there have been several attempts at reunion
(Fourth Lateran Council, a.d. 1215; Lyons,
1274-1280 ; Florence, 1439), the schism has
continued to this day. Once separated from
Rome, the Greek Church became, like the
Church of England, subject to the state, and
the tool of the imperial power (Alzog, " Church
History,' 1 vol. ii. pp. 449-466).

Digitized by VjQOQLC

Apostolicity.

187

APOSTOLICITY.

Why do you deny us Protestants the claim of
Apostolicity ? We claim that your Church was a
corruption of the Apostolic Church and that Luther
restored it to its primitive purity.

Is not the true successor of the Apostles that
preacher of the Gospel who inherits the Apostolic
spirit, and who works for the good of men as the
Apostles did?

Do not we Protestants stand for the true
Apostolic preaching ?

The Catholic Church denies that the Prot-
estant denominations are Apostolic, for they
are new teachers of new doctrines, who with-
out the slightest shadow of proof assert that
the promises of Christ have been of no avail
to preserve His Church from the corruption of
error. The Reformers of the sixteenth cen-
tury, indeed, claimed a special mission to over-
throw the existing government of the Church
by denying the universal jurisdiction of the
Pope; they also claimed light from above
to interpret the Bible at will to find out what
the Saviour taught, independently of the di-
vine authority He established. But to claim is
one thing ; to prove a claim another. Insane
asylums are full of people who claim to be
Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Leo XIIT.,
and the like. The Reformers produced no

Digitized by

The Question Box.

evidence in support of their new mission save
their own private opinion. They were self-
credited ambassadors without authority, who
gave no evidence by miracle or holiness of life
that they were sent of God. "He that enter-
eth not by the door into the sheepfbld, but
clin^beth up another way, the same is a thief
and a robber' 9 (John x. i ; I. Tim. i. 6, 7;
II. Tim. iii. 1-5).

The true Apostolic succession demands more
than mere natural love of the brethren. An
Apostolic church must have Apostolic doctrine,
orders, and authority. The Bible gives us
unmistakable evidence of a Church built on
the Apostles, and continuing one and the same
for ever without even the possibility of failure.

Christ Himself chose the twelve Apostles,
and made them, with Peter as their head
(Matt. xvi. 18 ; Luke xxii. 31-32; John xxi.
15-17), the foundation of His Church. " You
have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you 99
(John xv. 16; Matt. iv. 18-22; Mark iii. 13,
14; Luke vi. 13-16; John vi. 71; Eph. ii.
19, 20) .

He gives to the Apostles a divine commis-
sion to preach His doctrine and pardon sin in
His name and with His authority for all times
and for all places, guaranteeing their faith-
fulness by the perpetual guidance of Himself
and the Holy Spirit (Matt, xxviii. 18-20; Matt.

Digitized by

Apostolicity*

xviii. 17 ; Mark xvi. 15, 16 ; Luke x. 16 ; John
xx. 21-23; John xiv. 26; John xvi. 13).

The Apostles continually claim to be divine-
ly commissioned ministers and ambassadors of
God (Rom. i. 5; x. 14, 15; I. Cor. iv. 1; I.
Cor. xii. 28 ; II. Cor. ii. 17 ; v. 19, 20 ; vi. 4 ;
I. Thess. ii. 3, 4, 13; Eph. iv. n, 12; Col. i.
25; Heb. v. 4; I. Tim. ii. 7; I. John iv. 6).
They are most strong in their denunciation of
those who dared teach a new gospel, because
they realized it must needs be man-made, and
therefore false (Gal. i. 8 ; Heb. xiii. 9). They
know nothing of a Church that will become
corrupt, for they had heard Christ's words
which speak clearly of a perpetual Church
(Matt, xxviii. 20; John xiv. 16). Consequent-
ly we find them ordaining successors to carry
on their work of preaching and pardoning,
whom they commanded to hold fast to every
doctrine of the gospel, and in turn transmit
it pure and undefiled to faithful and cap-
able men (Acts xiv. 22 ; II. Tim. ii. 2; i. 6 ;
Tit. i. 5). It is plain, therefore, to one who
studies these texts of Scripture carefully, that
the whole work of Christ Jesus as Teacher,
Ruler, and Sanctifier of men is to be carried
on for ever by the Apostolic body, and those
divinely associated to that Apostolic body by
the fact fcf orders received and jurisdiction
given. If, for example, a body of twelve men

Digitized by

190

The Question Box,

receive from the owner of a large farm of five
thousand acres the contract to gather in his
entire harvest, they receive also as a matter of
fact the right to hire as many others as are
necessary in order to fulfil their contract. But
no outsider can rightly cut a swathe or bind a
single sheaf of that harvest, unless he receive
authority so to do from one of the twelve, or
some sub-contractor who acts in their name
and with their authority. If he attempt it he
will be treated as a trespasser.

So with the Lord of the harvest, Christ
Jesus (Luke x. 1-12) . He has given over the
harvest of all nations to twelve men (Matt,
xxviii. 18-20; Mark xvi. 15, 16), and they, to
carry out that divine commission, must neces-
sarily choose others to carry on the work after
their death. So we find them, immediately
after the death of Judas, selecting Matthias in
his place (Acts i. 26) . Only those appointed
by the Apostles, or their associates, have any
right to labor in the harvest of souls. 4 'He
that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold,
but climbeth up another way, the same is a
thief and a robber' ' (John x. 1).

As for the Reformation dogmas of Protest-
antism being identical with the early preach-
ing of the gospel, many Protestants themselves
to-day repudiate the teaching of the Reformers
entirely. Much of the modern unbelief comes

Digitized by

Apostolicity.

191

of the realization of the fact, that if the Re-
formers had a right to give the world a new
Christianity, others also have the same right
to call themselves Christians while stripping
Christianity of all its supernatural character.
A study of the Fathers, or of the catacomb
inscriptions, will prove every Catholic doc-
trine and practice, and completely refute the
Protestant denial of the visible Church, the
apostolic ministry, the efficacy of the sacra-
ments, the true notion of faith and good works,
etc. "So much must the Protestant grant,"
writes Cardinal Newman, c c that if such a sys-
tem as he would now introduce ever existed
in earlier times, it has been clean swept away
as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and with-
out memorial ; by a deluge coming in a night,
and utterly soaking, rotting, tearing up, and
hurrying off every vestige of what is found in
the Church before cock-crowing ' ' ("Histori-
cal Sketches," vol. i. p. 418).

What right has your Roman branch of the
Universal Church to lord it over the Greek and
Anglican branches ?

We ask in reply : What is the Church of
England ? What are its doctrines ? What its
history ? What its witness to-day ? What its
authority? And we find three parties among
Episcopalians, all claiming to represent her

Digitized by Google

192

The Question Box.

truly. The High-Church party with its Church
idea minus the Pope; the Low-Church party
Protestant of the Protestants, with the Bible
only, and horrified at the thought of any move-
ment Romeward ; the Broad-Church party,
repudiating both the prayer-book and the
Thirty-nine Articles, and standing for liberal,
rationalistic Christianity with the Unitarian
and the Universalist. Which is the Church
of England?

The High-Church party evolved the Branch
theory — the Roman, Greek, and Anglican
branches form one universal Church ; but it is
a theory unknown till the last century, and
therefore over eighteen centuries too late.

We can readily understand what is meant
by the Roman Catholic Church with its perfect
unity of Apostolic doctrine, of episcopal gov-
ernment under one infallible head, the Pope,
who can teach authoritatively and bear in-
fallible witness to the doctrines of Christ. We
can understand what is meant by the Church
of England as an organization, or corporate
body, dependent upon the state in its origin
and continuance. But we can form no con-
ception of this imaginary three-branch church
of whose existence nine-tenths of its members
are ignorant. We cannot grasp the notion of
a union of men holding doctrines and prin-
ciples fundamentally opposed despite their

Digitized by

Apostolicity.

193

earnest protest. For all Catholics, Greeks, and
Protestants, with the majority of Episcopalians
themselves, deny the existence of any such body.

If a union were possible between churches
that affirm and deny the most essential doc-
trines of Christianity, it would follow that the
Church had ceased entirely to perform her
chief office as the infallible teacher, witness,
and guardian of Christ's revelation ; the abid-
ing presence of Christ (Matt xxviii. 20) and
the Holy Spirit (John xiv. 16, 17, 26) have
failed to keep her pure from the taint of false
doctrine, and the gates of hell have prevailed,
contrary to Christ's promise (Matt. xvi. 18).

The branch theory, therefore, gives us a
church in name only. What indeed is a
church that cannot speak authoritatively and
declare the true doctrine of the Saviour ? What
is a church divided against itself, teaching
one thing in London, another in St. Peters-
burg, and another in Rome. " Every city or
house divided against itself shall not stand"
(Matt. xii. 25).

The Catholic Church does indeed regard the
Greeks and Anglicans as dead branches, cut
off from the centre of unity ; national churches
on!y> whose fulness of ecclesiastical power rests
in the person of the King or the Czar. She
does not lord it over them, but rather regrets
their heresy and schism, and prays earnestly

Digitized by

194

The Question Box.

for their return to the faith of their forefathers.
(Bagshawe, "The Church"; MacLaughlin,
4 'The Divine Plan of the Church/')

We Anglicans claim Apostolic succession from .
the present bishops back to the Apostle Paul,
who first brought Christianity to Britain. Why,
then, do you dispute our claim ?

Because there is not the slightest evidence
for the claim. As for St. Paul's preaching in
Britain, no proof whatsoever is forthcoming.
We deny the claim of Apostolic succession
made by some members of the Church of Eng-
land and the Protestant Episcopal Church of
America, because, in the first place, we con-
sider their priests and bishops to be mere lay-
men for lack of valid orders. But even grant-
ing that their orders were valid, the fact of
their being cut off from the centre of unity,
the See of Rome, which has ever been the
test and guarantee of the true Apostolic suc-
cession, is proof positive against them. " How
shall they preach unless they be sent?" we
ask with St. Paul (Rom. x. 15). Whence
came the mission of the Anglican bishops to
teach? Not from the Pope, whom they re-
pudiated ; not from the Catholic bishops, who
in Elizabeth's time denounced them as spuri-
ous ; not from the crown, for it could not give
what it did not itself possess.

Digitized by

Apostolicity. 195

No, the Church of England is a modern
church dating from the decree of Parliament
that made Henry VIII. the head of the church
in spirituals as well as temporals, and all at-
tempts to prove it the same church in govern-
ment, doctrine, and ritual with the Church of
the Apostles in England before the Reformation
provoke a smile with all outsiders, and are
pronounced futile by the majority of their own
communion.

Why do you class us Episcopalians with other
Protestant denominations when we resemble your
Church so closely in many respects ?

Because the Church of England and its
sister in this country, the Protestant Episcopal
Church of America, have for their basic prin-
ciple the private judgment of the individual,
and not the voice of the living, infallible
Church. At the outset of the Tractarian
movement indeed, about seventy years ago,
some notion existed that a bishop as the suc-
cessor of the Apostles had a , right to teach
authoritatively ; but the constant contests be-
tween ministers and bishops with different
views concerning doctrine and practice have
finally destroyed all notion of authority what-
soever. And so in our day an Episcopalian
bishop may ordain a man against the indig-
nant protests of the clergymen of hte diocese,

Digitized by

196

The Question Box.

while, on the other hand, a ritualistic minister
may defiantly hold doctrines his bishop con-
siders false, or go through with a so-called
"mass " that his bishop regards as idolatrous.
And worse still, a High-Church bishop may be
forced to tolerate within his diocese men whose
views are so broad that they deny with im-
punity the dogmas of the Trinity and the
Divinity of Christ.

The mere outward semblance, therefore, of
ritual, or the mere holding of dogmas as
matters of opinion, does not constitute iden-
tity with the Catholic Church; although, un-
doubtedly, the hand of God is thus visible
directing many sincere souls to consider the
one great question : Is there on earth a divine,
infallible teacher which voices authoritatively
all the gospel of the Saviour ?

THE CHARGE OF INTOLERANCE.
Do you believe that sincere Protestants will be
damned?

Where do good Protestants go after death ?
Does the Roman Church claim the monopoly of

salvation?

Do you believe that all Catholics go to heaven,
and all Protestants to hell ?

Do you honestly think all pagans are doomed
to eternal hell fire ?

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 197

Does not your catechism teach that " outside
of the Church there is no salvation " ? Is this
not an intolerable doctrine ?

The Catholic Church teaches that no one
goes to hdll, unless he has freely and de-
liberately turned his back on God, and died
guilty of mortal sin. The axiom, " Outside
of the Church there is no salvation," is a
technical expression, to be understood only in
the sense that Catholic theologians have ever
put upon it. A non-Catholic once said to me :
"You cannot explain that away, for the words
are too plain. They admit of but one mean-
ing, viz.: the wholesale damnation of all that
are not members of your Church." And yet,
on further questioning, he admitted that a con-
stitutional lawyer ought to be the authority
on the meaning of a clause in the Constitution
rather than an ignorant voter who could not
explain why he was a Republican rather than
a Democrat. According to his argument, the
axiom of English law, "The king can do no
wrong," would imply that King Edward VII.
was confirmed in grace, rather than the fact of
his not being amenable to any court in Eng-
land.

The Catholic Church has always believed
that men putside of her fold might live in
error, and still be saved; that men outside
of her visible organization through invincible

Digitized by

198 The Question Box.

ignorance might still be in the soul of the
Church, by a true spiritual communion of
faith and charity ; that every anathema or con-
demnation by the Church relates to error it-
self or false principles contrary to* the gospel
of Jesus Christ, and does not concern the in-
terior guilt of men or women in error; that no
Catholic has a right to judge the guilt of any
individual.

Pius IX., writing on this matter, says:
' * Far be it from us to dare set bounds to the
boundless mercy of God ; far be it from us to
desire to search into the depths of the hidden
counsels and judgments of God, an abyss that
the mind of man cannot explore. . . . We
must hold as of faith, that out of the Apostolic
Roman Church there is no salvation ; that
she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever
is not in her perishes in the deluge ; we must
also, on the other hand, recognize with cer-
tainty that those who are in invincible igno-
rance of the true religion are not guilty for
this in the eye of the Lord. And who will
presume to mark out the limits of this igno-
rance according to the character and diversity
of peoples, countries, minds, and the rest?"
(Allocution, Dec. 9, 1854). And again he
writes : " It is known to us and to you that
those who are in invincible ignorance of our
most holy religion, but who observe carefully

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 199

the natural law and the precepts graven by
God upon the hearts of all men, and who be-
ing disposed to obey God lead an honest and
upright life, may, aided by the light of divine
grace, attain to eternal life ; for God, who sees
clearly, searches and knows the heart, the dis-
position, the thoughts and intentions of each,
in his supreme mercy and goodness by no
means permits that any one stlffer eternal pun-
ishment who has not of his own free will fallen
into sin M (Encyclical to the Italian Bishops,
August 10, 1863).

We see, therefore, that the plain teaching of
the Catholic Church is 1 1 He who is outside the
one visible Church of Christ by his own fault
cannot be saved.' ' Thus, a man convinced
that the Catholic Church is the one King-
dom of God established on earth for the sal-
vation of men, and yet refusing to belong to
her communion because it means loss of social
or political position, of money, of friends,
rebels wilfully against his conscience, gravely
insults Christ, and is guilty of grievous sin.
Again, a man who gravely doubts about his
own belief and refuses to study the Catholic
claim, sins against the light.

How absurd to think that we believe all
Catholics are to be saved by the very fact of
their being Catholics, when the Council of
Trent teaches expressly against Luther that no

Digitized by

200 The Question Box.

one can ever be absolutely certain of salvation
(Sess. vi., de Just., can. 15).

With regard to pagans, it is the teaching
of the Church that God sincerely wills all men
to be saved, and that He gives sufficient grace
to all men, pagan or Christian, for salvation.
It follows, therefore, logically, no pagan is lost
except by his own fault. It is an old axiom of
the schools, " God will not refuse His grace to
any man that does the best he can" (what
lies in his power) (Du Blanchy, * 'Extra
Ecclesiam non est salus"; Hergenrother,
" Church and State," vol. ii. xvii. par. 3).

Intelligent non-Catholics recognize clearly
the true sense of this formula, and the bound-
less charity and hatred of intolerance that
marks the spirit of the Catholic Church. Mal-
lock writes : " There is no point, probably, con-
nected with this question, about which the
.general world is so misinformed and ignorant
as the sober but boundless charity of what is
called the anathematizing Church. So little
indeed is this charity understood generally,
that to assert it seems a startling paradox.
. . . It is the simple statement of a fact.
Never was there a religious body, except the
Roman, that laid the intense stress she does on
all her dogmatic teachings, and had yet the
justice that comes of sympathy for those that
cannot receive them. . . . The Jioly and

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance, 201

humble men of heart who do not know her,
or who in good faith reject her, she commits
with confidence to God's uncovenanted mer-
cies ; and these she knows are infinite. . . .
Her anathemas are on none but those who re-
ject her with their eyes open, by tampering
with a conviction that she really is the truth.
These are condemned, not for not seeing that
the teacher is true, but because, having really
seen this, they continue to close their eyes to
it. They will not obey when they know they
ought to obey " (" Is Life Worth Living ? " ch.
xi. 283-285). A Catholic could not state the
doctrine more clearly.

If I can be saved outside the Catholic Church,
what is the use of my joining it ?

One might as well ask : If I can swim
across the Hudson ^iver, why should I pay
three cents to ride in a ferry-boat?

Jesus Christ was a divine teacher, who com-
manded us to believe all His teaching under
penalty of damnation, and a divine organizer
who commanded us to join His society, the
Catholic Church. ' * He that believeth not shall
be condemned " (Mark xvi. 16) ; " Teaching
all things " (Matt, xxviii. 20) ; " If he will not
hear the Church, let him be to thee as the
heathen or publican' ' (Matt, xviii. 17). The
Catholic Church alone preaches the entire gos-

Digitized by

202 The Question Box,

pel, and in her inner and outer life is the
ordinary way of salvation God gave to men.
As a non-Catholic, therefore, you are, even
if inculpably outside the Church, deprived
of much of God's revelation, and many of
His helps for salvation; v. g%% Penance, the
Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Again, if God's grace urge you to join His
true Church, and you hesitate about studying
her claims because you dread the opposition
of relatives and friends, the anxiety and worry
of protracted study, the loss of political or
social position, the burden of new obligations
— like obligatory Sunday Mass or confession —
there is no possibility of your salvation, be-
cause you are false to conscience. How many
a doubting soul, utterly unable to swear on
the Gospel that their sect is the' one true
Church of Christ, and unwilling to die for
that belief, yet refuses to do away with his
doubts by study and prayer. We cannot re-
main indifferent to our eternal welfare without
forfeiting the friendship of God.

Would you as a Catholic priest like to have
the members of your Church take in a series of
lectures by a Protestant on. Protestant doctrines,
where the lecturer would insist that his Church
is the only true one?

If you are broad-minded and liberal enough to

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance, 203

Invite us Protestants to come to your services,
why in your bigotry and intolerance deny Catho-
lics the liberty to come to ours?

For what reason does a priest forbid Catholics
to attend non-Catholic churches ? Should not an
honest person study both sides ?

Protestants are invited by us to listen to the
explanation of Catholic doctrine and the an-
swers to their difficulties, because we know
that they can attend without violating any
principle of their Protestantism, which is a re-
ligion of fallible, private opinion. Disclaim-
ing infallibility, a logical Protestant must
necessarily be in the attitude of a seeker after
truth. He usually says "that one church is
as good as another* ' because he lacks the
divine witness to the unique Christianity
Jesus founded. He is often a doubter, who
questions at times whether or not the old his-
torical Church may be right. Was the Refor-
mation a step towards Christ or in the direc-
tion of infidelity and indifferentism ? Is the
Bible its own witness? Will faith alone save a
man ? Are those stories about the Church of
Rome true or false? Is this her real teach-
ing or a parody thereof? Are these her moral
principles, or has she repudiated them as
calumnies of her enemies? Is confession of
sin an institution of Christ? Does the Sav-
iour really dwell with His people? With

Dl&itized byLjOOQle

204

The Question Box.

thousands who have not yet denied the Christ
there is an eagerness to know the message
of the Catholic Church, as the large attend-
ance at these lectures to non-Catholics in every
part of our country abundantly proves.

On the other hand, the Catholic, resting not
on the varying, contradictory human and falli-
ble views of men, but on the uniform, certain,
divine, infallible witness of Christ's Church,
is possessed of an absolute divine certainty
that his Church alone has the true religion
Jesus Christ gave the world.

A logical Protestant must ever be in the
state of chronic doubt ; a Catholic never has
the slightest doubt.

A logical Protestant is ever a seeker after
truth ; a Catholic has found it, and therefore
is under no necessity of further search.

Catholics, therefore, could not without vio-
lating the essential principles of Christianity
take part in religious services they know to be
false, or consider doctrines they know on
divine authority to be contt&ry to the gospel
of Christ.

St. Paul told the early Christians that it
was sinful to participate in the sacrifices of
paganism (I. Cor. x. 21); the same Apos-
tolic Church forbids to-day co-operation in any
erroneous religion as displeasing to the God of
truth.

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 205

Practically, the Catholic Church, having a
uniform faith, can satisfactorily explain her
teaching to the world ; but Protestantism, di-
vided hopelessly, would find it impossible to
explain what she protests against. Imagine,
for instance, the Episcopal Church attempt-
ing to give a series of lectures explanatory
of her teachings, and the three lecturers
are severally High-Church, Low-Church, and
Broad. Each man would deny in turn what
the other held was the gospel of Christ.

It is not a question of liberality or broad-
mindedness, for Catholics maintain that no
man can without sin deny the doctrines
of the Saviour. To countenance the preach-
ing of a false gospel is practical denial of
the Christ ; to take part in a false worship is
to sinfully declare all worship equally pleasing
to God. True, our spirit is one of kindliness
to all and hatred toward none, and utterly de-
void of that bigotry which implies an irra-
tional belief in a doctrine one cannot prove,
together with the hatred of all others who be-
lieve differently. Catholics hate none who pro-
fess a false religion, but rather compassionate
them and pray for them.

But one's good will is never shown by the
sacrifice of principle ; one's kindliness is never
manifested by declaring that essential differ-
ences do not exist. We cannot be "liberal"

Digitized by

206

The Question Box.

with the doctrine, of the Saviour, for it is
God's truth. You would not call the man
liberal who was lavishly spending his employ-
er's money.

As for studying both sides, a Protestant is
bound to do so; for, like the scientist in
face of an unproved hypothesis, he cannot be
infallibly sure that his theory is right. A
Catholic has no other need to study than the
scientist with proved and tested facts is obliged
to go over the ground of his predecessors.
His faith rests on God's authority, not on
mail's, and therefore he cannot be deceived.

Why do you forbid Catholics to attend Spiritis-
tic seances?

Can a Catholic be a medium?

Why is the Catholic Church opposed to Spirit-
ism ?

A short summary of the facts and teaching
of Spiritism will at once explain the attitude
of the Catholic Church. Spiritism, or the sys-
tematic communication with spirits that claim
to be departed souls, is merely a new form
of pagan necromancy, anathematized by the
law of Moses (Exod. xxii. 18; I^ev. xix. 26;
Deut. xviii. 10; I. Kings xxviii. 9). In
its modern dress, it dates from the spirit reve-
lations of the Fox family at Hydesville, New
York, in 1848. Within a few years Spirit-

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 207

ism counted some ten million adherents in
this country alone. The fact of its rapid prog-
ress showed the evident weakening in faith of
the various Protestant denominations that fed
it. Its doctrines, learned from spirit mani-
festations, are given us in detail by lead-
ing spiritists like Wallace, Kardec (Rivail),
Crookes, Home, Tuttle, and others.

It claims to be a religion^ although it gives
no worship to God, and substitutes in His
stead a great crowd of spirits of every grade
of intellect and morality. Its external wor-
ship is the feverish excitement of the uncanny
stance, and its priests chiefly women "medi-
ums," who, under stress of hypnotic influence
or diabolic possession, bring about many
strange phenomena, such as table-rapping,
the writing of the planchette, oral and writ-
ten spirit communications, the reading of
secret thoughts, the diagnosis of diseases,
the speaking of unknown tongues, the prophe-
sying of future events, the describing distant
happenings.

Undoubtedly some of the so-called facts of
Spiritism may be ascribed to fraud, for time
and time again mediums have figured in the
police courts ; others can be explained by mere
natural causes, such as hypnotic influence, or
some hitherto unexplored natural force in man
(t>r. J. Wieser, S.J., of Innsbruck, " Spiritism

Digitized by

2o8 The Question Box.

and Christianity "). But over and above this
there are facts which seem to have overwhelm-
ing testimony in their favor, and which point to
diabolic agency.

Spiritism pretends to be the final perfection
of Christianity, although it denies its every
dogma, and declares that Jesus Christ is not
the Son of God, but merely one of the high-
est spirits.

Its history has been marked with the great-
est immorality, as the Mountain Cave, the
Kiantone Movement, the Sacred Order of
Unionists, and the Order of the Patriarchs
amply prove. Some have argued that this was
merely an abuse, but we say that Spiritism is
essentially anti-moral. It has no worship of
God, and no eternal sanction of reward and
punishment to safeguard morality. It declares
that human existence is merely a time of trial
for spirits until they reach the final perfec-
tion which is the destiny of all. Surely such a
teaching is not calculated to curb the evil
passions of men's hearts.

Rightly, then, does the Church warn her
children against this irreligious and immoral
superstition, which often seems to evidence
the power of Satan ; and forbid them not only
to become mediums, but even to attend the
Spiritistic stances. (" Is Spiritism a Develop-
ment of Christianity ? " Amer. Cath. Quart.,

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance,

209

vol. viii. p. 153 ; " Modern Spiritism versus
Christianity,' ' ibid., vol. vii. p. 208.)

In what way does Christian Science conflict
with the teachings of the Catholic Church ?

Can a Catholic be treated by Christian Scien-
tists merely for health, provided he or she do
not believe in their teachings ?

Can you in the face of such overwhelming evi-
dence deny the many cures wrought by Chris-
tian Scientists ?

The Catholic Church regards Christian
Science, with its denial of a personal God
distinct from the universe, the divinity of
Jesus Christ, and every Christian dogma, as an
essentially pagan system. Discovered in 1866
by Mrs. Eddy, of Boston, it was given to the
world in 1875 as "the final revelation of the
absolute principle of scientific being and of
healing/ ' in her work "Science and Health,
with Key to the Scriptures ' ' (Joseph Arm-
strong, Boston, ed* 1901).

Christian Science is a very striking example
of that inevitable tendency toward unbelief
that characterizes the Protestant principle of
private interpretation; for while pretending,
with many another false prophet (Mark xiii.
22), that the Bible is her " sole teacher, guide,
and text-book* * (pp. viii. 4, 20), Mrs. Eddy
perverts its meaning at every step ; and while

Digitized by

2io The Question Box \^

quoting its words she gives them, without
any warrant whatsoever, a meaning'which will
agree with her irrational mingling of Ideal-
ism, Manicheism, and Pantheism. The Divin-
ity of Christie absolutely denied, and His
divine gospel^comes a mere system of meta-
physical healing (pp. 32, 346, 363, 478, 574,
etc.) After -feading Mrs. Eddy's book from
cover to cov^r, one wonders how any rational
man or woman could ever believe Without the
shadow of proof in a pretended prophet, claim-
ing absolute obedience, who cures by the mere
reading of a book, or by absent treatment,
functional andUorganic diseases (pp. 135, 71,
443, 43). Much of the book is unintelligible;
and therefore its author tells us that we may not
hope to fathom its meaning. Such phrases as
these are indeed incomprehensible : 4 * There is
no physical science. Matter is nothing but mor-
tal belief. Man is the compound idea of God.
Gender is a quality, a characteristic of mind,
not matter. Electricity is not a vital fluid,
but the least material form of illusive con-
sciousness— a material mindlessness 99 (pp. 21,
19, 471, etc.)

Here are a few specimens of the new logic :
44 If drugs are part of God's creation, then
drugs cannot be poisonous. If we live after
death and are immortal, we must have lived
before birth. If soul sinned, it would be

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance, 2 1 1

mortal. You say a boil is painful; but that
is impossible, for matter without mind is not
painful" (pp. 50, 427, 464, 47).

Mrs. Eddy refuses to be called a pantheist,
but her own words convict her, if words mean
anything: " There can be but one Mind, be-
cause there is but one God. In one sense
God is identical with nature. Soul or spirit
signifies deity and nothing else. There is no
finite soul or spirit. There is but one mind
or intelligence. God, Spirit, being all, noth-
ing is matter. Science reveals nothing in spirit
out of which to create matter. All is mind,
and mind is God. Soul is God, unchange-
able, eternal" (pp. 465, 13, 462, 112, 7, 174).

She holds the old Manichean doctrine that
the material world is evil, and that therefore
God is not its Creator : " To regard God as the
creator of matter is not only to make Him re-
sponsible for all disasters, physical and moral,
but to announce Him as their source" (pp.
13; <f. 546, 174, 8).

She renders religion impossible by denying
a personal God distinct from the universe, the
existence of soul in body, free will, sin, etc.:
"The great mistake of mortals is to suppose
that man is both matter and spirit. Soul or
spirit signifies deity and nothing else. Will-
power is but an illusion of belief— the delusion
of sin" (pp. 112, 462, 486, 100, 468).

Digitized by

212

The Question Box.

She denies every fundamental N dogma of
Christianity, the Trinity, the divinity of
Jesus Christ, the fact of original and actual sin,
the redemption, the existence of a divine so-
ciety to preach the gospel, the sacramental
system, the necessity of faith, grace, prayer,
fasting, the resurrection of the body, the last
judgment, angels, devils, eternal punishment.

"The theory of three persons in one God,
Le.> a personal Trinity, or tri- unity, suggests
heathen gods. Jesus was the highest human
concept of a perfect man. He was not divine,
but a mere healer of the sick ; the legend of
the serpent, a myth, a dream narrative ; sin is
a delusion. That God's wrath should be visited
upon His beloved Son is divinely unnatural.
Such a theory is man-made. Christianity as
Jesus taught it was not a creed. The true
science of God and man is no more super-
natural than is the science of numbers. Our
lord's first article of faith was healing. Our
Baptism is a purification from all error. Our
Eucharist is a spiritual communion with the
one God. Faith is the acceptance of Christian
Science. The 'new man* of Scripture is a
Christian Scientist. Audible prayer can never
do the works of divine understanding ; prayer
is unnecessary, as the Au, has already decreed
what is good for us. Fasting is a senseless
belief; the belief that material bodies return

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 2 1 3

to dust hereafter to rise up spiritual bodies is
incorrect. No final judgment awaits mortals.
Angels are . . . not messengers but mes-
sages of the true idea of divinity. Evil or
devil is not mind, is not truth, but error. Hell
is mortal belief, error, remorse, hatred" (pp.
152, 508, 478, 32, 523, 519, 154, 100, 416, 468/
238, 327, 29, 492, 467, 5, 39, 34o, 484, 196, 310,
187, 195, 465, etc.)

Her denial of the evidence of the senses, the
reality of matter, the facts gained by medical
science and surgery, the utter lack of coherency
and system in her many contradictory state-
ments prove her system to be as unscientific
as it is irreligious and anti-Christian. " What
we term the five physical senses are simply be-
liefs of mortal mind. When an accident hap-
pens . . . declare you are not hurt, and
you will find the ensuing good effects to be in
exact proportion to your disbelief in physics
and your fidelity to God. The corporeal senses
are the only sources of evil and error. Chris-
tian Science explains all cause and effect as
mental not physical. There is no physical
science. One disease is no more real than an-
other. All disease is cured by mind. Belief is
all that ever enables a drug to cure mortal ail-
ments. What is termed disease does not exist.
Science can heal the sick who are absent from
their healer. Where there are fewer doctors

Digitized by

214

The Question Box.

and less thought is given to sanitary subjects,
there will be better constitutions and less dis-
ease" (pp. 170, 365, 485, 7, 21, 69, 67, 81, 71).

How account for the growth of Christian
Science? Its followers are recruited for the
most part from the ranks of those indifferentist
or unbelieving Protestants who, ignorant of the
first principles of Christianity, are the ready
victims of any new teaching. Again, this
new phase of modern unbelief allows the un-
thinking mind to call itself Christian, while at
the same time it does not demand the accept-
ance of the doctrines or moral principles the
Saviour taught. Furthermore, like errors of
other times, it appeals to the suffering mul-
titude who long for some panacea of disease,
and care little for the method of the cure.
Witness in our country the following gained by
such evident impostors as Dowie, Schlatter,
and the millions spent annually in the fees of
quacks. The financial side of the movement
is another factor in its growth, for it provides
an easy wa}r of practising medicine.

How account for its so-called cures ? I recall
two cures of the Christian Science kind — one
of a pretended operation in a large city hospital,
which completely cured a woman of an internal
(imaginary) disease of many months standing ;
another of a woman bedridden for years, who
during the panic induced by a fire in her house

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 2 1 5

recovered the use of her limbs by the mere ex-
ercise of will-power long dormant. So, fre-
quently physicians have treated their wealthy
hypochondriac patients on a harmless diet of
bread-pills and water, and daily discussed with-
out a smile the marked progress caused by their
wonderful prescription.

The mahy cures, especially in the nervous
diseases of women, wrought abroad in our gene-
ration by hypnotic suggestion at the hands of
the scientific graduates of the schools of Nancy
and Paris, have made us realize more than ever
before the influence of the mind and the imagi-
nation over bodily disease (Le Hypnotism Franc-
Coconnier). Christian Science has adopted this
child of modern therapeutics, and dressing it
up in the clothes of unchristian and unscientific
principles, endeavors by dint of vigorous and
oracular assertion to win for it the reverence
of its credulous following. We can safely chal-
lenge any of these modern curists to bring for-
ward one authentic case — proved by affidavits
of reputable Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and
infidel physicians — in which the mind of a meta-
physical healer has set a broken arm or leg, heal-
ed a cancer or a tumor, or effected the cure of
any organic disease. As for healing the deaf, the
dumb, the blind, the lame, lepers — only Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, and the saints of the old
law and the new, have worked such miracles.

Digitized by

216 The Question Box,

Indeed, we deem those who suffer the sick
under their care to die for the want of proper
medical attendance to be guilty of criminal
neglect, and if in their ignorance and supersti-
tion they do not realize their sin, the law of the
state should, in the interests of society, see to
it that those dependent on such fanatics be pub-
licly provided for, just as the Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty looks after children mal-
treated by their parents.

No Catholic is warranted in having recourse
to Christian Science healers for the cure of
bodily disease, because it is grievous sin to en-
courage charlatanism or superstition in any
form; and even if a real cure were certain,
Catholics know they cannot deny Jesus Christ
or His divine teachings for any temporal bene-
fit whatsoever. It is not allowed to do evil that
good may come.

The Catholic Church teaches clearly the
efficacy of prayer, but forbids her children to
neglect the ordinary means at their disposal for
the cure of disease, doctor's skill and medi-
cines, as irrational and sinful. Miracles are
exceptional things, and not the ordinary law
of God's providence. She quotes the words of
Holy Writ: ' 1 Honor the physician for the
need thou hast of him ; for the Most High hath
created him. . . . The skill of the physi-
cian shall lift up his head, and in the sight of

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 2 1 7

great men he shall be praised. The Most High
hath created medicines out of the earth, and a
wise man will not abhor them, . . . My
son, in thy sickness neglect not thyself, but
pray to the Lord, and He shall heal thee"
(Ecclus. xxxviii. 1-10).

She declares infallibly that Jesus Christ came
to teach men the truth of God and to save them
from sin, and that He sent His apostles to
preach and pardon in His Name until the end
of the world. Christian Science, which denies
His divinity and His gospel, is to her a
superstition against the first commandment of
God.

What is your opinion of theosophy?

Theosophy is a modern pantheistic illusion
borrowed from the East, and popularized for
the West, chiefly by Madame Blavatsky and
Colonel Olcott. It regards the universe as a
manifestation of the Great Eternal Reality,
the human soul as an emanation thereof. Man
is composed of seven parts, four of which are
perishable (personality) — the physical body, the
principle of life, the astral or invisible body,
and the animal soul, — and three eternal (indi-
viduality)— the Great Reality, the spiritual
soul, and the understanding.

At death, however, the animal soul may still
remain in a disembodied state, and entering

Digitized by

218

The Question Box.

into other persons act as a medium of com-
munication. A Mahatma — that is, one who has
become perfectly independent of the faculties
of sense — can project his astral body to any dis-
tance, and communicate through the astral
senses to the members of the mystic brother-
hood, detect things invisible to ordinary eyes,
read the thoughts of absent persons, etc. The
world is governed by an inexorable fatality or
law of retribution, called Karma. Good is
necessarily rewarded, evil necessarily punished.
Forgiveness* of sin is impossible. Man, if
wicked, sinks lower and lower, until he reaches
the goal of complete annihilation ; if good, he
is by successive reincarnations finally absorbed
into the one Eternal Reality (Nirvana), losing
his personality, although, strangely enough,
not his individuality.

This teaching is a queer mixture of Brahmin
and Buddhist pantheism and atheism, and con-
tradicts the elemental notions of Christianity by
its denial of a personal God, of the possibility
of forgiveness of sin, of the fact jof probation in
this life, of future eternal reward and punish-
ment, of the individually responsible sinner.
Its wonders are to be ascribed either to fraud,
self-delusion, or to diabolical agencies.

Does not your Church claim the right to im-
prison, torture, and kill heretics?

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 219

Does not the Catholic Church sanction perse-
cution ?

No ; the Catholic Church declares it sinful
to force people to join her communion, or to
punish for heresy or false religion those outside
her fold. With Tertullian ("Ad Scapulas")*
she declares that "It is assuredly no part of
religion to compel religion — to which free will
and not force should lead us. ' * Conversion is
a matter of persuasion, and forced conversion
simply means hypocrisy. With St. Paul she
declares: " What have I to do with judging
them that are outside ? Them who are outside
God will judge " (I. Cor. v. 12, 13). As to in-
flicting bodily penalties, according to canon
law any one who takes part in the shedding of
blood becomes by the very fact irregular, or
incapable of receiving or exercising Holy Or-
ders.

We regret that Catholic rulers, Catholic ec-
clesiastics, and Catholic people have often as a
matter of fact persecuted. We denounce as
strongly as Protestants do the dragonnades of
l^ouis XIV., the enforced conversions of the
Moors and Jews in Spain, the cruelty and the
excesses that often attended the punishment by
the state of heresy, which used to be regarded
as a political crime.

Those were times of severity and cruelty.
Thank God they have passed away for ever.

Digitized by

220 The Question Box.

(J. Rickaby, " Persecution," Catholic Truth
Society publications, vol. xxxvi.)

" I heartily pray," writes Cardinal Gibbons,
" that religious intolerance may never take root
in our favored land. May the only king to
force our conscience be the King of kings ;
may the only prison erected among us for the
sin of unbelief or misbelief be the prison of a
troubled conscience ; and may our only motive
for embracing truth be not the fear of man, but
the love of truth and of God" ("Faith of
Our Fathers," p. 297).

By what right did Catholic sovereign* per-
secute men for their opinions ?

No Catholic government ever persecuted a
man for a mere private Opinion, but for the
public teaching and spread of opinions which
were thought destructive of society. So to-day,
every government in the world claims the right
to punish men for certain crimes* no matter
what the plea of private opinion. In a court
of law, an anarchist might plead conscientious
motives for the murder of King Humbert or
President McKinley, a socialist might justify
his stealing by his theory of the injustice of
private ownership, a bigamist might plead that
he was a Mormon, a publisher of indecent
literature that he was merely exercising a: pri-
vate right — yet the law would not recognize

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 221

any of these pleas, else society would be power-
less to protect itself against any form of vice.

Catholic Tulers regarded heresy as destruc-
tive of the social order, and against the law of
Christendom which made it a political crime,
and while we denounce those monarchs who
endeavored to force religion on unbelievers at
the point of the sword, as Charlemagne, Louis
XIV., or Philip II., contrary to the principle
of the Catholic Church, we cannot, on the
other hand, blame them for punishing those
whom they considered enemies of the state.
This becomes more plain when we study the
immoral, irreligious, and anti-social principles
of the Albigenses, the Hussites, and the Wyc-
lifites.

Is it not due to Luther, Calvin, Knox, and the
other great Reformers that to-day men are no
longer imprisoned, tortured, or burned for their
religion ?

Would not Catholics persecute Protestants to-
day, if they had the power?

No; for the Reformers in every country
where they obtained power, Germany, Eng-
land, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, the Nether-
lands, preached and practised the most bitter
intolerance. Luther held that the Anabap-
tists ought to be burned, declared all meas-
ures lawful against Catholics, and invoked the

Digitized by

222

The Question Box.

civil power against Carlstadt and the Zwin-
glians. In Saxony blasphemy was punished
with death, and heresy with banishment. The
Calvinfets were equally bitter. Calvin burned
Servetus for denying the Trinity, and wrote a
book in defence of the right of persecution.
Bucer and Melancthon congratulated him on
his action, and also wrote to the same purpose.

In England the history of the penal laws
of Henry VIII., Elizabeth, Edward VI., James
I., Charles I., Cromwell, Charles II. is a his-
tory of fines, imprisonment, banishment, tor-
ture, and death for the practice of the Catholic
religion (Cardinal Moran, * * Historical Sketch
of the Persecutions suffered by the Catholics
of Ireland"; Dublin Review, Jan., 1882; W.
S. Lilly, Dublin Review, July, 1891 ; Hallam,
" Constitutional History of England,' ' vol. iii.
PP« 359i 38l> ct seq->m Gerard, "The Condi-
tion of Catholics under James I." ; D. Murphy,
S.J., " Cromwell in Ireland 99 ; " Records of the
English Catholics under the Penal Laws, from
the archives of the See of Westminster ").
Cranmer advocated persecution, and burned
many Protestants at the stake before openly
professing Protestantism himself. Ranke and
Hume both call Elizabeth's High Commission
a Protestant inquisition. We find the English
Parliament of James I. urging persecution as
"necessary to advance the glory of God,"

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 22$

while the Scotch Parliament in 1560 decreed
death to all Catholics. Archbishop Usher de-
clared: " To give any toleration to Papists is
a grievous sin " (Neale, " History of the Puri-
tans/ ' vol. ii. p. 469) ; John Wesley at the
time of the Gordon riots, 1780, wrote : " They
(Catholics) are not to be tolerated by any gov-
ernment, Protestant, Mohammedan, or pagan' 9
(Canon Flanagan, "History of the Church in
England," vol. i. p. 380; W. J. Amherst,
SJ., "History of Catholic Emancipation ") ;
John Knox, who deemed persecution a holy
and a sacred duty, strongly urged the Eng-
lish people to kill Queen Mary and all her
priests with her (Milner, Letter XUX., " The
End of Controversy ").

There is therefore not the slightest evidence
to show that the Reformation ever upheld, in
doctrine or practice, the toleration that exists
everywhere to-day by force of circumstances.
Religious toleration is a practical necessity, un-
less men wish to live in a state of chronic war
and discord; the common good demands it.
It is wrong, however, to base it on the prin-
ciple of indifferentism which declares that
certainty in religious matters is impossible,
and that one religion is as good as another.

I<et me quote an unbiased non-Catholic wit-
ness on this question, W. I,ecky, in his
"Rationalism in Europe," vol. ii. pp. 57-61:

Digitized by

224 The Question Box.

" But what shall we say of a church (Prot-
estant) that was but a thing of yesterday ; a
church that had as yet no service to show,
no claims upon the gratitude of mankind ; a
ichurch that was by profession the creature of
private judgment, and was in reality gene-
rated by the intrigues of a corrupt court, which
nevertheless suppressed by force worship that
multitudes deemed necessary for their salva-
tion, and by all her organs, and with all her
energies, persecuted those who clung to the
Teligion of their fathers ? What shall we say
of a religion which comprised at most but a
fourth part of the Christian world, and which
the first explosion of private judgment had
shivered into countless sects, which was never-
theless so pervaded by the spirit of dogmatism
that each of these sects asserted its distinctive
doctrines with the same confidence, and per-
secuted with the same unhesitating virulence,
as the Church which was venerable with the
homage of more than twelve centuries ? . . .
Persecution among the early Protestants was
a distinct and definite doctrine, digested into
elaborate treatises, and enforced against the
most inoffensive as against the most formidable
sects. It was the doctrine^of the palmiest days
of Protestantism. It was taught by those who
are justly esteemed the greatest of its leaders."

There is not the slightest reason to suspect

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance, 225

that Catholics would persecute to-day if they
had the power. The Church claims no coef*
cive authority over those outside her fold. She
considers faith an act not only of the intel-
lect, hut of the wall, which ought to be per-
fectly free when there is question of God's
truth. Once the pure gospel of Christ has
been lost by men, nothing but a willingness to
believe and a conviction of the intellect can
by God's grace give it back. When Lord
Baltimore started the Catholic colony of Mary-
land, he decreed that " no person within the
province professing to believe in Jesus Christ
shall be anyways troubled, molested, or dis-
countenanced, for his or her religion, or in
the free exercise thereof." Protestants, per-
.secuted in Virginia, sought refuge in the
Catholic province of Maryland. Does not this
compare favorably with the conduct of the
Puritans who, on the accession of Cromwell,
disfranchised the Catholics of the province, with
the laws of New England which put Quakers
to death, or the intolerance of other colonies
that legislated against Catholics? (Bancroft,
" History of the U. S.," vol i. p. 233, et seq.;
Hergenrother, "Church and State," vol. ii.
xvi. par. 15 ; Backus, " History of the Baptists
in New England," vol. i. 290 ; Yorke, " Yorke*
Wendte Controversy," pp. 13*1-205.)

Digitized by

226 The Question Box.

Was not the Spanish Inquisition one of the
most inhuman institutions the world has ever
known, with its imprisonment, torture, and
burning of heretics for conscientious belief ?

The Spanish Inquisition was no more cruel
than the Genevan Inquisition of Calvin, the
Court of High Commission of Elizabeth (Hume,
History, cl^ xii.; Neale, " History of the Puri-
tans,' ' vol. i. p. 10), or the penal laws against
Catholics in England, Scotland, Ireland, Hol-
land, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany. Is it
fair to speak continually of this tribunal, in-
different to statistics, oblivious of comparison
with Protestant belief and practice in the six-
teenth century, ignoring the spirit of the age
which everywhere regarded heresy as a crime
punishable by the state, and cared little for
severe punishments which no nation to-day
would tolerate for an instant? Is not this to
excite the passions and prejudices of the ig-
norant ?

The Spanish Inquisition was established in
1478 by Ferdinand and Isabella to punish the
apostate Jews of Spain, who were openly pro-
fessing Christianity for gain and preferment,
while secretly practising Judaism and favoring
the Moors. These Maranos, through their
wealth and intermarriage with noble families,
were deemed a menace to the unity of the
kingdom.

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 227

After the conquest of Granada many of the
Moors also became Christians, not out of con-
viction but for personal gain, and uniting with
the Jews, were greatly feared by the govern-
ment. Popular hatred of the Jews, for real or
supposed crimes commonly attributed to them,
added to the bitterness with which apostates
were sought after and punished according to
the law. T*he Inquisition, however, did not
force Christianity on those who did not be-
lieve, but prosecuted those who professed a
Christianity they inwardly rejected. Under
Philip II. the Inquisition, besides preventing
the introduction of Protestantism into Spain,
also saved it from the religious wars of France
and Germany. Finally, at the close of the
eighteenth century, its aim was chiefly directed
against the introduction of French infidelity
into Spain. It was finally abolished in 1830.

We must put ourselves in the place of the
Catholic people of the time. Heresy was a
crime that the state considered worse than
treason, and punished with death. Catholic
rulers, knowing that the introduction of a false
religion inevitably carried with it religious war
and social disturbance, naturally, out of zeal
for the Church they loved and solicitude for
the kingdom they ruled, would prevent this to
the utmost of their power. Was not the
Church in possession for centuries? Was it

Digitized by

228

Tke Question Box.

not the duty of a Christian prince to safeguard
his people from false teaching ?

One would think that the Reformers held
different views on this matter. On what prin-
<ciples could a new religion founded on the
individual's private interpretation of the Scrip-
tures, and disclaiming infallibility, persecute
•another which demanded the same liberty of
denial ? And yet, as Rousseau "declared, ' * The
Reformation was intolerant from its cradle,
and its authors universal persecutors " (" li-
tres de la Mont")- A Protestant historian,
Hallam (" Literature of Europe," vol. ii. ch.
ii.), bears the same testimony : " Persecution
for religious heterodoxy, in all its degrees, was
in the sixteenth century the principle as well
as the practice of every church. It was held
inconsistent with the sovereignty of the magis-
trate to permit any religion but his own, in-
consistent with his duty to suffer any but the
true. ' ' And again : * * Persecution is the deadly
original sin of the reformed churches, which
cools every honest man's zeal for their cause,
in proportion as his reading becomes more ex-
tensive" (" Const. Hist.," vol. i. ch. ii.)

Why, then, is there .so much said of the
Spanish Inquisition ? Has it peculiar horrors,
or are its practices merely a reflex of the man-
ners of the age ? Men speak of the number of
its victims. They forget that the authority in

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 229

this matter is a Spanish priest, Uorente, who
was false to both Church and country, and
v* wrote his history after his banishment from
Spain. Moreover he declares that he burned
nearly all the official reports. What would
any fair-minded man say of a historian who,
when asked to substantiate certain statistics,
would calmly declare that he had burned the
original documents? In the England of the
period (1593) Sir James Stephen reckons " 800
executions a year in the forty English coun-
ties" (" History of the English Criminal
Law," vol. i. p. 467)-

Is it fair to pass over in silence the many
Catholics who suffered the death penalty for
their faith in England and Ireland under Henry
VIII., Elizabeth, James I., Charles I., Crom-
well, and Charles II.? (Card. Moran, "His-
torical Sketch of the Persecutions in Ireland " ;
Dublin Review, Jan., 1882 ; July, 1891).

Others complain of the severity of the pun-
ishment by fire, the use of torture to extract
confession, the terrible dungeons in which the
accused were confined y the unjust mode, of
procedure, etc. We simply challenge com-
parison with any other country where Profc*
estantism was dominant.

Thousands were burnt at the stake for witch-
craft in England, Scotland, and Germany,
others for heresy in England and Switzerland.

Digitized by

230

The Question Box.

( ' ' Chambers ' s Encyclopedia ' ' ; Charles W .
Upham, "Salem Witchcraft.") Boiling to
death, half-hanging, disembowelling and quar-
tering were common penalties under Henry
VIII. and Elizabeth. Why, the death penalty
was awarded to a theft above twelve pence by
the English law of the time! (1577). (Rye,
* 1 England as seen by Foreigners in the days
of Elizabeth/ ' p. 269.)

The use of torture was common in nearly all
the European states until the close of the
eighteenth century. It was used frequently,
by Elizabeth against Catholics, even though it
was contrary to the common law. Hallam
writes ("Constitutional History," vol. i. p.
200): "The rack seldom stood idle in the
Tower for all the latter part of Elizabeth's
reign.' ' In this matter, therefore, the Inquisi-
tion merely shared one of the errors of the time.

The dungeons of the Tower in which Catho-
lic priests were imprisoned for the mere say-
ing of Mass were far worse than the Inquisition
prisons, being "dark cells below the high-
water mark, infested with rats and vermin "
(Jardine (Protestant), " Reading on the Use of
Torture in England").

The mode of trial was far more just than
the English law, which concealed from the
accused not only the names of his accusers but
the charges also until he appeared in court;

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance.

231

and which denied him both the use of wit-
nesses and advocate, while the Inquisition al-
lowed both (see James Stephen, ibid., p. 350).

Undoubtedly there were many abuses inci-
dent to the tyrannical use of the royal power.
But who will deny that the same objection
holds good of the Tudor and Stuart sovereigns
of Protestant England ? We must not forget
that the Inquisition was in great part a politi-
cal institution, as Protestant writers like Ranke
(German), Guizot (French), and Creighton
(English) admit, to render secure the stability
of the Spanish throne. Time and time again
we find the Popes — Leo X., Paul III., Paul
IV., Sixtus IV. — protesting against the arbi-
trary conduct of the Spanish kings in using
the Inquisition.

Place yourself, therefore, at the view-
point of the sixteenth century ; study the prin-
ciples and practices of the age. Choose be-
tween Isabella, Ferdinand, and Philip II., and
Elizabeth, Henry VIII., and Cromwell.

Robespierre and his associates in the French
Revolution, while deluging France in the blood
of her best and noblest men and women,
hypocritically declaimed against the cruelty
of the Inquisition in Spain. (American Catho-
lic Quarterly, vol. i. p. 254, vol. xii. p.
69 ; Dublin Review, June, 1850, Jan., 1867 ;
De Maistre, " Letters on the Spanish Inquisi-

Digitized by

232

The Question Box.

tion"; Balmes, "Protestantism and Catholic-
ity Compared"'; Smith, "The Spanish In*
quisition," Catholic Truth Society pubKca*
tions; Hefele, " History of Cardinal Ximenes,"
chs. xviii. xix.)

What excuse is there for the cruelty of Inno-
cent III., who ordered' Simon de Montfort to per-
secute the Albigenses?

The real cause of the crusade against the
Albigenses was their immoral and irreligious
doctrines, whereby they were a menace to the
social order then existing, which was founded
on the principles of the Christian faith. They
held that there were two Christs, and that the
bad Christ suffered on the cross ; rejected the
Blessed Eucharist; disowned the Old Testa-
ment, its law and its God ; denied the resur-
rection of the body ; declared oaths unlawful ;
condemned marriage; called the begetting of
children a crime. Not content with preaching
these doctrines everywhere, and causing social
disturbance thereby, they destroyed churches
and monasteries, murdered priests, and spared
neither orphans, age nor sex, as we learn from
the Third Council of Lateran in 1179.

We ought not to blame Pope Innocent III.
for taking severe measures, because one hun-
dred years of preaching and persuasion had
utterly failed, and these disturbers were be-

Digitized by Google

The Charge of Intolerance. 233

coming stronger every yeax. .Imagine in our
own country, to-day, that in a certain State
thousands of fanatics began to deny, :theoreti-
cally and practically, the lawfulness of oaths,
the dignity of marriage, and destroyed hun-
dreds of churches, massacring all that opposed
their teaching. Suppose that the governor of
the State was powerless to handle them be-
cause of their number. Would you blame
President Roosevelt for sending United States
troops against them? Do you blame the
Allied Powers for uniting to secure in China
the protection of Christians against the atroci-
ties of the Boxers? We do not apologize for
the terrible cruelties of the campaign against
the Albigenses. Those were cruel times. But,
as Sheridan rightly said : " War is hell."

Did not your Church order the massacre of
thousands of inoffensive French Huguenots on St.
Bartholomew's day (Aug. 24, 1572), and the
Pope chant a Te Deum for it in Rome?

How could an infallible Pope authorize and
approve the massacre of 100,000 inoffensive
•French Protestants whose only offence was their
refusal to obey the Church of Rome?

Religion had nothing whatever to do with
the massacre of St. Bartholomew. It was in-
spired out of purely political motives by the
unscrupulous, irreligious Catherine de Medici,

Digitized by

234

The Question Box.

who urged it on her son Charles IX., either to
forestall a real plot against the life of the king,
or to anticipate the threatened Huguenot ven-
geance on account of the attempted assassi-
nation of Admiral Coligny on August 22.

The court of France, anxious to right it-
self before the world, declared by Parliament,
August 26, that in carrying out this severe
measure it had merely anticipated a plot of
Coligny and his associates against the life of
the king and princes of the royal family.
Margaret of Valois admits the existence of
this plot in her mempirs (x. p. 408). Be this
as it may, it is just as absurd to accuse Cathe-
rine or her weakling son of zeal for religion
as it would be to accuse a modern saloon-
keeper of zeal for the cause of total absti-
nence..

It is certainly false that the massacre of the
Huguenots was long premeditated, or that the
saintly Pius V. knew anything of it (Civilth
Cattolica, Set. vi. vol. viii., p. 679; vol. ix.
267, 662; vol. x. p. 268; vol. xi. 14).

Gregory XIII. had a Te Deum sung in the
Church of St. Mark on September 5 because
he believed, on the testimony of the French
ambassador Beauville, that a Huguenot plot to
murder the king and place the Huguenot
Henry Bourbon on the throne had been dis-
covered, and its authors had suffered the

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 235

penalty of their crime. When he learned the
real facts of the case, he expressed his horror
at the deed (Brantome, " Vie de M. TAmiral
de Chastillon," viii. p. 190). His joy is no
more extraordinary than the congratulations of
President. McKinley to the Prince of Wales
after he had escaped the assassin's bullet.
We must remember that there was no telegraph
in those days, to correct the false views sent at
first by the king to Rome.

Philip of Spain and Queen Elizabeth both
accepted the account of the Huguenot con-
spiracy (Theiner, "Annates," xlvii.) All re-
membered the conspiracy of Amboise to seize
the person of King Francis II., the assassina-
tion of the Duke of Guise under the probable
connivance of Coligny (Lingard, , 41 History of
England," vol. vii. p. 320), and the constant
murders that had marked the history of the Hu-
guenots. There was nothing, therefore, to ren-
der the account improbable, so that no one can
blame Pope Gregory for accepting the story.

Were the Huguenots inoffensive citizens?
No one with the slightest knowledge of the
facts could say so. For years they had en-
deavored, by secret understanding • with the
enemies of France and by open rebellion, to
destroy the Catholic faith and overthrow the
government ; they had three times started civil
war, and although granted after each defeat

Digitized by

236

The Question Sox,

full amnesty and toleration, they still con-
spired against the king ; they delivered two
important cities of France to England, and
lastly, these inoffensive, freedom-loving, perse-
cution*hating Calvinists destroyed some .fifty
cathedrals «nd five Jiundred churches, de-
molished the tombs of Catholic kings and
saints, profaned sacred shrines, burned mon-
asteries, murdered priests after torture only
comparable to that of the Chinese Boxers,
butchered thousands of defenceless men and
women, burned :and sacked hundreds of towns
and villages. Could any sensible man expect
Catholics to be quiet in the face of such out-
rages ?

I*et us hear Protestant testimony as to the
spirit of meekness that characterized French
Protestants: " Whatever may be the popular
notion respecting the necessary intolerance of
the Catholics, it is an indisputable fact that,
early in the seventeenth century, they dis-
played in France a spirit of forbearance and
Christian charity to which the Protestants could
make no pretence " (Buckle, " History of Civil-
ization,* ' vol. i. ch. viii. p. 518).

"Whoever has read the great Calvmist
divines and, above all, whoever has studied
their history, must know that in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries the desire of perse-
cuting their enemies burned as hotly among:

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 237

them as it did among any of the Catholics even
in the worst days of Papal dominion 99 (vol. i.
ch. viii. p. 505).

How many were, massacred on St. Barthola*
mew's day? The numbers vary from, one
thousand to one hundred thousand, though
the Calvinists could only succeed in obtaining
seven, hundred and eighty-six names for in-
sertion in their so-called " MartyrQlogy,,, pub-
lished in 1582. A generous number would be
two thousand. Even Froude, in his " History
of England* * (vol. x. ch. xxiiL p. 408), ad-
mitted that* without exact statistics we should
at least divide the extreme number by ten.

Let us ask, in conclusion, is it . fair to be
for ever and always, pointing to this page of
history, when Catholics, can say with Christ to
the accusers, " He that is without sin among
you, let him first cast a stone 99 (John viii. 7).

Is it fair to pass over the frightful massacre
at Nfrnes on St. Michael's day, 1567, instigated
by the Calvinistic preachers, when two hun-
dred and fifty Catholics were mercilessly butch-
ered one by one, and their bodies cast into
a deep well ? Is it fair to pass over the murder
of the clergy in the Corpus Christi procession
at Pamier? What, too, of the outrages at
Montaubon, Rodez, Orthez, Valence, Troyes,
Tours, Bayeux, Grenoble, Poitiers, and I,e
Mans?

Digitized by

238 The Question Box.

In a word, anyone that recalls the seventy-
one years of civil war (1557-1628), in which
all the evil passions of men were roused to the
utmost, the difference of religion fanning the
flame, will not be a bit surprised to meet with
frightful atrocities on both sides. If during
our civil war a regiment of Protestant soldiers
should have been guilty of the most shameful
outrages in the South, would any one be justi-
fied in throwing the blame upon the several
denominations to which they belonged?

Remember also that in combating the vio-
lence of Protestant zeal, which, riot content
with toleration, sought totally to extirpate
the Catholic faith, and by constant treason
at home and abroad to undermine the French
monarchy, the Catholics of France were merely
acting in self-defence. Surely they had more
right to use violence in preserving the faith of
centuries, than the Protestants in Germany, Eng-
land, Sweden to use violence in establishing a
new religion. (Rev. Wm. I^oughnan, "The
Huguenots " The Massacre of St. Bartholo-
mew,* ' Catholic Truth Society publications;
Hergenrother, " Church and State," xvii. sec.
22 ; Amer. Cath. Quarterly, vol. xix. p. 508 ;
Dublin Review, Oct., 1865; Parsons, "Studies
in History,' ' vol. iii. p. 393-402.)

Was not the revocation of the Edict of Nantes

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance.

239

one of the most cruel acts known to modern
history?

Suppose for a moment that it was, this per-
sonal act of Louis XIV. is no more to be at-
tributed to the Catholic Church than the impure
life of the Grand Monarch to the principles of
the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a fact of his-
tory that Innocent XI. openly disapproved of
his harsh measures against the French Hugue-
nots, and through his nuncio in London re-
quested James II. to intercede with Louis XIV.
in their favor (Hergenrother, "Church and
State," vol. ii. p. 379, who quotes Macaulay,
Lingard, Ranke, Dollinger, etc.)

By the Edict of Nantes, in 1598, Henry IV.
granted a number of privileges to the French
Huguenots, hoping thereby to put an end to
the long series of civil wars that had divided
the kingdom. It never effected its purpose.
In 1685 Louis XIV., acting on the Protestant
principle set forth at Westphalia despite the
protests of the Church, " cujus regioy illius est
religio" that "the kingdom should follow the
religion of the prince," decided to revoke these
privileges. These edicts were revocable at the
will of the monarch, as Grotius tells us, and
the parliament of 1598 had expressly declared
that they could be revoked, if a future sove-
reign should deem it for the public good. We
must remember that the Edict not only gave

Digitizetl by

240 The Question Box.

religious toleration but gave the Huguenots
political independence, which enabled them to
stir up disorder whenever it suited their in-
terests. (" Life of Richelieu/' Lodge, of Glas-
gow, 1896).

It does not concern us to defend the political
policy of Louis XIV, The followers of Calvin
surely could not find fault with so perfect an
imitation of their master, who in Geneva ex-
pelled the sect of the Libertines, burned Serve-
tus at the stake, beheaded Gruet, imprisoned
Gentile, and upheld in his writings the most
drastic and cruel treatment of heretics to be
found in all history. Those in glass houses
ought not to throw stones.

We are just as ready to denounce the severe
method of Louis XIV., especially the dragon-
nades, as was Innocent XI., thePopeof the time*

Did not the Catholic Queen Mary of England
by her persecution of Protestants merit the title
of " Bloody Mary"?

She surely does not deserve the title as much
as the cruel Protestant Queen Elizabeth. In
the last three years of her reign there were un-
doubtedly bitter persecutions, but the motive
was simply political. They were not based on
Catholic principles. Men are so apt to forget
that the Protestants in her reign strove to de-
throne her (Wyatt, "Lady Jane Grey"),

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 241

♦made attempts upon her life, prayed publicly
for her death, and published many treasonable
pamphlets against her. Cranmer and his asso-
ciates were executed by» the laws they had
themselves devised under Edward VI. and car-
ried out against the Anabaptists. Any one
•who knows the utter worthlessness of Crammer's
i&aracter, and his burning of the Protestants
I^ambert, Frith, Allen, Knell, Van Par, and
Askew, will surely see a just retribution in
his fate (Stone's " Life of Queen Mary").

.Does your doctrine of excommunication and
anathema inipty a delivering up of a man to
eternal perdition ?

No, it is the penalty of «jcehision from the
Church. Her object, however, is to warn the
sinner of ttie danger he is running of eternal
ruin. St. Paul, when he said (Gal. i. 8) "let
him be anathema " who preaches another gos-
pel, *did not thereby consign to hell men whom
he would have died to save, but wished to de-
nounce most strongly the teachers of false doc-
trine. The Church follows the example of St.
Paul in pronouncing her anathemas {American
Cath. Quarterly, 1887, p. 663).

Is not your claim of forbidding Catholics to
read certain books intolerable ?

No; the right of the Church to prevent her

Digitized by

242 The Question Box,

children reading books tjiat are either immoral
or irreligious, arises from the fact that she is the
divinely appointed teacher and guardian of the
revelation of Jesus Christ. It is her duty to
warn the faithful against evil reading, just as it
is the statfe's office to prevent the sale of ob-
scene literature or the staging of immoral plays.
It is an Apostolic practice, for we read in the
Acts (xix. 19) of the Ephesians burning their
books of magic after the preaching of St. Paul.
In the same spirit the Council of Nice pro-
scribed the works of Arius, and I^eo the Great
the works of the Priscillianists in Spain. Only
those who are totally indifferent to dogmatic
belief, or who have lost all conviction of the
essential difference between good and evil, can
deny this right, so beneficial alike to the indi-
vidual and society.

Why is your Church opposed to cremation ?

On May 19, 1886, a Roman decree forbade
Catholics " to join those societies whose object
it was to spread the practice of cremation, or
to leave orders for the cremation of one's
body or that of another.' ' The reasons for the
Church's opposition are:

1 st. Although there is no intrinsic reason
why cremation is unlawful, and no divine pre-
cept to bury the dead, still it is contrary to
the universal practice of the Jews under the

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 243

Old Law (Gen. xxiii. 4; Tob. ii. 7-9) and the
Christians under the New.

2d. It is to-day advocated by modern un-
believers, who knowing the Christian respect
for the dead arises from the fact of the resur-
rection, hope by this practical method to under-
mine the belief in immortality. "Catholics
have grave reason to oppose cremation/ ' writes
the pantheistic Freemason Ghisleri (Almanacco
dei Libert Muratori for 1881) ; "this purifica-
tion of the dead by means of fire would shake
to its foundations Catholic predominance, based
on the terror with which it has surrounded
death.' ' . . . "Oh rapid transformation!
— in one short hour commingled with the inner
being of the great All."

3d. The early Christians buried the dead
after the example of Christ as a protest against
the pagan denial of the resurrection, and out
of respect for the body which had been the
dwelling place of God by the reception of the
Eucharist.

4th. Cremation to-day is opposed to the
whole spirit of the burial service of the Catho-
lic Church, although should cremation be made
a compulsory law, as some of its advocates de-
mand, she could easily adapt her prayers and
funeral services to this new method.

5th. Medical men and jurists have opposed
cremation on the ground that it destroys all

Digitized by

244 " The Question Box.

evidence 6f the cause of death, so often needed
in criminal cases of poisoning.

6ih.- There is no objection to cremation in
times of pestilence, or in such cases as the
late flood in Galveston, when it is needed for
the public good. (" Cremation and Christian
ity," Dublin Review, April, 1890; " The Ethics
of Cremation/ 9 The Monik, May, 1875; "Is
Cremation Christian Burial ?M ibid., 1884.)

Why is your Church so bitterly opposed to the
Freemasons, who are often good, charitable
members of society?

Why da you forbid Catholics joining the
Masons ?

Do the Masons date back to the time of King
Solomon ?

What secret orders are forbidden by your
Church in this country?

Why don't the Church condemn all secret
organizations ?

As early as 1738 Clement XII. excommuni-
cated the Freemasons, and his example has
been followed by Benedict XIV. {1751), Pius
VII. (1821), Leo XII. (1826), Pius IX. (1869),
and Leo XIII. Catholics, therefore, who join
this society contrary to the known law of the
Church, are guilty of grievous sin, and incur
the extreme penalty of excommunication, or
exclusion from membership. This deprives the

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 245

Mason of the Sacraments, of all share in the
public prayers of the Church, and finally of
Christian burial . The prohibition of the Church
is enouglrfor the Catholic who recognizes her
divine light to command, and knows that it is
only exercised for the common good of her
children. She, the great advocate of charity
in all centuries, would undoubtedly not
condemn any society of men for its benevo-
lence or love of the brethren, or wantonly .leg-
islate to deprive her children of the money and
help they might require in the hour of need.
The reasons of her condemnation of Masonry
are :

1st. Masonry is undoubtedly a sect, with a
code of belief, ritual, and ceremonies, standing
for mere naturalism in religion and for a moral-
ity founded on merely human motives. Fre-
quently the Masons of Europe have claimed
Freemasonry as the religion of nature, and the
Catholic Church therefore, as the supernatural
religion of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, can-
not allow her members, to join it. One cannot
be a Mason and a Catholic at the same time,
any more than he could be both Methodist and
Catholic. " The God of Freemasonry is Na-
ture. . . . There is no need of privileged
agents making a trade of their pretended media-
tion " {Revue Ma$onniquey Sept., 1835); and
again : " Freemasonry is progress under every

Digitized by Google

246

The Question Box,

form, in every branch of human activity. It
teaches us that there is only one religion, one
true and therefore natural religion, the worship
of humanity. . . ,. God is only the product
of a generous but erroneous conception of hu-
manity 99 (Jan., 1870, p. 539).

2d. It is undoubtedly certain that the Masons
have been noted in Italy, France, and other
countries for a marked hatred of the Church,
which, veiling itself under the name and love
of liberty (Liberalism), helped in the spoliation
of the Church in 1870, forced the clergy to
enter the army, closed many religious houses
by excessive taxation, appropriated church
revenues, favored civil marriage, secularized
education, and in public print and speech re-
peatedly pledged themselves, as in Naples in
1870, "to the prompt and radical abolition of
Catholicity, and by every means to procure its
utter destruction." You may say that the
American and English Masons are not of this
type, and have openly severed all connection
with these atheistical Continental Masons. I
answer that if Albert Pike's book, "Morals
and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scot-
tish Rite of Freemasonry,' ' be authentic, the
esoteric doctrine of the higher degrees is es-
sentially anti- Christian and immoral. (C. Cop-
pens, S.J., "Is Freemasonry anti-Christian?"
Amer. EccL Review, Dec, 1899). The Church

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 247

as a universal society makes laws that have a
universal application. Nor is it at all certain
that American Masons refuse fellowship to the
Masons of Latin Europe and America.

3d. It is also contrary to morality to pledge
one's self to absolute secrecy from those who
have a right to demand a revelation, especial-
ly when death is the penalty attached to dis-
loyalty to that oath — the case with Freemasons.

4th. Practically, Masonry in these United
States, by putting all religions on a level,
fosters the spirit of indifferentism, which is
only unbelief in disguise, and substitutes in
the mind of the ignorant the lodge for the
church. I have heard scores of Protestant
Masons say, on our missions to non-Catholics,
" My lodge is church enough for me *' ; "the
only religion I believe in is the doing good to
my fellow-man,' ' etc. I have frequently, too,
heard their Protestant church-going wives trace
their husbands loss of Christian faith to the
lodge. Some Protestant denominations have
come out strongly against secret societies (The
National Association of Chicago), but they
lack that universal power to command which
only a divine authority like the Catholic Church
can exercise.

The condemnation (1895) of the Knights of
Pythias, the Oddfellows, and the Sons of Tem-
perance was based on the conviction that these

Digitized by

248

The Question Box.

societies were doing harm to the faith of Catho-
lics. Other secret societies . have not been in-
cluded in this condemnation. (" Freemasonry
in Latin- America,' ' Amer. Caih. Quarterly \ vol.
acxiii. p. 802 ; " The Laws of the Church and
Secret Societies," vol. v. p. 252.)

Why are Catholics opposed to the American
system of public schools ?

Because they make no provision for the re-
ligious instruction of children, which Catholics
consider absolutely necessary.

It is the direct duty of the Catholic Church,
as the divine, infallible teacher of the revelation
of Jesus Christ ("Teach ye all nations,' ' Matt,
xxviii. 19), to safeguard the religions educa-
tion of each succeeding generation. With her
it is vastly more important to .know well the
doctrines of faith and morals than to be able to
work out a problem in geometry, or to know
the position of Cape Nome upon the map. An
infidel or an indifferentist Protestant may not
appreciate the value of a religious education
entering into the daily life of a child, but any
fair-minded man, no matter what his religious
convictions, must admit that Catholics, holding
their doctrines as infallible certainties and not
as mere opinions, must consider their religion
when there is question of the education of their
children.

Digitized by

The Charge of Intolerance. 249

Although the divine commission of the Catho-
lic Church to teach the world directly concerns
religious truth, she is essentially bound to off-
set any danger to faith and morals incident to
the prosecution of secular studies. She there-
fore, on principle, demands whenever possible
a good Catholic education for her children, and
must needs view with disfavor the principle on
which exclusively secular education is based.
The Catholic, therefore; objects to the public-
school system :

1 st. Because he considers the separation of
human learning from religion a false principle.
The total ignoring, day by day, of the most
vital element in ' education — religion — is not
Christian, and must in many cases lead to bad
results. Its tendency is to foster the spirit of
indifferentism in matters of religion, and to lead
the child to believe that Christianity need not
enter into its every-day life, but is reserved for
Sunday and the Sunday-school. God is often
lost sight of ; the motive and basis of morality
becomes merely natural; there is a general
weakening in the grasp of fundamental Chrisr-
tian principles.

2d. It is practically impossible, taking human
nature as it is, or considering, for example, the
subject matter of a history class, to avoid allu-
sions to religion. A non-Catholic teacher must
put forth some views of morality, and Catholics

Digitized by

250 The Question Box.

claim that these belong to religion. Even un-
wittingly, because of his ignorance of Catholic
teaching, he may teach doctrines opposed to
Catholic principle. Catholics do not want their
children to be taught that the Pope sold indul-
gences, or that Luther was a holy man, and
the Reformation a step forward and a blessing.

I remember lately a high-school teacher in
Brooklyn giving as a theme ' c The Causes and
Effects of the Reformation," which was treated
by Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and infidel
pupils. What manner of teaching can that be
which claims no power to teach authoritatively,
and simply leaves minds unable to judge for
themselves open to confusion and uncertainty ?

3d. Again, Catholics realize that children
are easily worked upon, and that there is a
close personal relation between a strong-minded
teacher and an impressionable boy or girl'. It
is natural that prejudiced Protestantism or bla-
tant infidelity will at times voice its objections
against the Catholic Church or against Chris-
tianity. Even when this is not done in so
many words, the false idea may be conveyed
by an insinuation, an interrogation, or a mere
shrug of the shoulders.

4th. Catholics, again, object to the double
burden laid upon them of supporting both the
public and their own parochial schools. They
hold that as citizens of the United States they

Digitized by Google

The Charge of Intolerance. 251

are entitled to have their conscientious difficul-
ties about the purely secular education of their
children considered and respected. This coun-
try acknowledges its obligation to provide for
secular education, and Catholics claim that
such provision should so be made that thfey can
avail themselves of it without going against
their religious principles. They object to the
exclusion of religion from the schools in which
their children are taught, and to non- Catholics
as teachers of their children.

But you may say that in a country like ours,
with a mixed population of various religions,
religion cannot be taught by the state.
Granted. Catholics do not ask a cent from the
state to provide catechisms or Bibles, or to
pay for religious instruction. In all fairness,
however, they demand that secular training
be provided for their children by the state, in
such a manner as not to prevent religious
teaching by Catholic teachers, as is done
in other countries, England, Germany, Aus-
tria, Belgium, where the same conditions pre-
vail. The state can see to it that the secular
teaching is up to the required standard, so that
the public money be well spent. This is a
mere matter of justice.

I know very well that many sincere Catho-
lics have attended the public schools, and that
the lack of religious instruction was in some

Digitized by

252 The Question Box.

degree made up elsewhere. But no one can
deny that the general tendency of such educa-
tion is evil and harmful.

Indefed, patriotism should protest against the
exclusion of religion from the schools. Un-
doubtedly men are better citizens if they are
good Christians. The fear of God is a stronger
motive for keeping the law of the land than the
fear of the police court.

Furthermore, many Protestant denominations
have come gradually to the Catholic way of
thinking, and have provided religious schools
for their children. (" Catholic Free Schools in
the United States/' Amer. Cath. Quarterly,
1884, p. 713 ; " Prof. Fisher on Unsectarianism
in the Common Schools," ibid., 1889, p. 505;
" The Idea of a Parochial School,* ' ibid., 1891,
p. 441 ; " Liberalistic View of the Public School
Question, " ibid., 1877, p. 1, 240; "Pur Paro-
chial System, " ibid., 1892, p. 867; "Public
School System and Protestantism/' ibid., 1886,
p. 730; "Religion in Education," ibid., 189 1,
p. 760.)

THE OCCASIONS OF SIN.

Our Church is opposed entirely to dancing,
card-playing, and all theatre-going. Why are
your Church laws so lax on these matters?

The principles of the Catholic Church are

Digitized by

The Occasions of Sin. 253

clear and explicit with regard to amusements.
God delights in seeing his people enjoy them-
selves in innocent recreation. The Catholic
Church declares that it is lawful to see a good,
pure play in a decent theatre; that dancing,
far from being evil in itself, was often a part of
divine worship in the Old Law (II. Kings vi..
14; Judg. xxi. 21 ; Exod. xv. 20); that card-
playing around one's fireside or at a public
euchre may be quite an innocent means of en-
joyment.

But if, on the contrary, the theatre becomes
a school of vice by its immoral plays, if danc-
ing excites the passions and means the com- '
panionship of the wicked, if card-playing im-
plies the feverish excitement of the gaming
table, Christians know at once that in such
cases amusements in themselves harmless be-
come the occasions of sin. The Third Plenary
Council of Baltimore legislated against danger-
ous amusements, especially certain kinds of
dancing.

The Catholic Church declares that any per-
son, place, or thing that by our natural or ac-
quired weakness leads us to grievous sin, must
be avoided under penalty of sin. However, to
forbid certain amusements in general merely
because if abused they lead some to sin, is
peculiarly a Protestant tradition without war-
rant in reason or in Scripture.

Digitized by

254

The Question Box.

Do Catholics believe that, provided they go to
church Sunday morning, they can do what they
please the rest of the day?

No ! Besides the obligation of attending
Mass every Sunday under penalty of grievous
sin, Catholics are also forbidden all unneces-
sary servile work in order to give the needed
rest to the body, and in order to devote a cer-
tain part of the day to God. Remembering,
however, the words of Christ, "The Sabbath
was made for man and not man for the Sab-
bath " (Mark ii. 27), the Catholic Church does
not prohibit servile work that is absolutely
necessary, nor frown down innocent amuse-
ments. There is naught of the Pharisee or
the Puritan about her.

What Bible authority is there for changing
the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of
the week?

Who gave the Pope the authority to change a
command of God?

If the Bible is the only guide for the Chris-
tian, then the Seventh Day Adventist is right in
observing the Saturday with the Jew. But
Catholics learn what to believe and do from
the divine, infallible authority established by
Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, which in
Apostolic times made Sunday the day of rest
to honor our lord's resurrection on that day,

Digitized by

The Occasions of Sin. 255

and to mark off clearly the Jew from tie Chris-
tian. St. Justin Martyr (Apol., c. 67) speaks
of the early Christians meeting for the holy sac-
rifice of the Mass on Sunday.

Is it not strange that those who make the
Bible their only teacher should inconsistently
follow in this matter the tradition of the
Church ?

Why do Catholics have so many holydays ?
Did not Paul find fault with the Galatians for
this very thing : " Ye observe days, and months,
and times, and years" ? (Gal. iv. 10).

The Apostle is not finding fault with God,
who set aside certain days and seasons as es-
pecially sacred, namely, the Sabbath (Exod.
xx. 10), the Sabbatical year (Exod. xxiii.
11), the year of Jubilee (Lev. xxvii.), the Pass-
over (Exod. xii. 6), the feast of tabernacles
(Lev. xxiii. 34), etc.; but he is writing
against the Judaizers who insisted that Chris-
tians were still subject to the obsolete Mosaic
law. So he says in the preceding verse, " How
turn ye again to the weak and beggarly ele-
ments, whereunto ye desire again to be in
bondage ?"

The Catholic Church has her religious festi-
vals to continually remind her people of the
great mysteries of Christianity, and to honor
our Saviour, His Mother, and the Saints.

Digitized by

256

The Question Box,

It is the same spirit that prompts our coun-
try to set apart certain days in honor of her
great events and her illustrious dead, such as
Decoration Day, Fourth of July, Washington's
birthday. Will you tell me that it is right for
an American citizen so to honor Washington
or Lincoln, and wrong for a Catholic to re-
member the birthdays of the heroes or saints
of Christianity?

ABSTINENCE.

Why not eat meat on Friday more than on any
other day? Does not St. Paul call this "the
doctrine of devils " (I. Tim. iv. i~3)> and Jesus
say "not that which goeth into the mouth de-
fileth a man" ? (Matt. xv. n).

What self-denial is there if one is allowed to
eat all the fish they want ?

Catholics abstain from meat on Friday in
honor of our Saviour's death on that day. St.
Paul refers to the early Manichean heretics,
who absolutely condemned the use of meat,
because they held that all flesh was from an
evil principle. It is true that the mere eat-
ing of meat is not sinful, but the deliberate
disobedience to the Church, which stands in
the place of Jesus Christ with a real, divine
power of command, is undoubtedly a grievous
wrong. Those who " eat all the fish they

Digitized by

Fasting. 257

want" and are gluttonous, may, indeed, ful-
fil the letter of the law, but not its spirit,
which insists on mortification in imitation of
the Saviour.

FASTING.

Why do Catholics fast ?

Because it is one of the precepts of the
Church. No one at all conversant with Holy
Scripture can object to fasting. We have the
example of Moses (Exod. xxxiv. 18; xxxiv.
28 ; Deut. ix. 9, 18), David (II. Kings xii. 16),
Elias (III. Kings xix. 6), John the Baptist
(Matt. iii. 4), our Saviour Himself (Matt. iv.
2), and the Apostles (Acts xiii. 3; xiv. 22).
Christ tells us how to fast (Matt. vi. 16), and
foretells that His people will £ast after He has
left them (Matt. ix. 15 ; Mark ii. 20). Time
and time again we find seasons of fasting men-
tioned in both Old Testament and New (II.
Chron. xx. 3 ; I. Esdras viii. 21 ; II. Esdras
ix. 1; Esther iv. 16 ; Joel ii. 15 ; Jonas iii. 5 ;
Acts xxvii. 9).

The object of fasting is to mortify the flesh
and keep it in subjection to the spirit (I. Cor.
ix. 27; Luke ix. 23; Gal. v. 24). The glut-
ton and the drunkard are never spiritual men.
Fasting conciliates God's mercy and obtains
the pardon of our sins, prepares the soul for

Digitized by

258

The Question Box.

the special grace of the Holy Spirit (Acts xiii.
2, 3 ; xiv. 22), casts out evil spirits (Matt. xvii.
20; Mark ix. 28), reminds us of the bride-
groom, Christ Jesus (Matt. ix. 15 ; Mark ii.
20 ; Luke v. 35. Cf. Tob. xii. 8 ; Joel ii. 15 ;
Ps. xxxiv. 13 ; Luke ii. 37 ; II. Cor. vi. 5).
Mere fasting in itself is not pleasing to God
(I. Cor. viii. 8), unless we use it as a means
of penance and mortification for Christ's sake.

Why do Catholics have Ember days, and what
are their significance ?

The Ember days — a corruption of the Latin
quatuor iempora — are three days of fasting at
the beginning of each season, the Wednesday,
Friday, and Saturday after December 13, the
first Sunday in Lent, Pentecost, and Septem-
ber 14.

Originally the ordinations to the priesthood
were held on the Saturdays of Ember week,
and it was deemed fitting that the people
should fast and pray at such times for the
clergy. " Pray ye, therefore, the Lord of the
harvest that He send forth laborers into His
harvest" (Matt. ix. 38) ; so Christ taught His
people to pray for a good, apostolic priesthood.
Fasting before ordination was an Apostolic cus-
tom (Acts xiii. 2, 3).

What is the meaning of the Lenten observance
in your Church ?

Digitized by

Fasting.

259

The forty days' fast of Lent is a custom of
Christian antiquity mentioned by Tertullian
(a.d. 99) in his book on fasting, and by Ori-
gen (a.d. 230) in his homily on Leviticus,
N. 2, in memory of our Lord's fast of forty
days before He undertook the work of His
three years ministry. St. Jerome in the fourth
century speaks of it as an Apostolic tradi-
tion: "We fast, the whole world agreeing
with us, one Lent, in accordance with the tradi-
tion of the Apostles" (41 Letter to Marcella).

Why are women not allowed to be bareheaded
in a Catholic Church as well as men ?

Because an Apostolic tradition forbids it (I.
Cor. xi. 5-11). " Every woman praying, or pro-
phesying with her head not covered, disgraceth
her head, . . . therefore ought the woman
to have a power (veil, or covering) over her
head, because of the angels. . . . You
yourselves judge : doth it become a woman,
to pray unto God uncovered ? "

Why do Catholics make the sign of the Cross ?

Because it is an Apostolic devotional prac-
tice, and an open profession of their belief in
the Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and
His death upon the Cross for our salvation.
Many of the early Church writers speak of it
("Faith of Catholics," vol. iii. p. 422-438).
Says Tertullian, in the second century: "In

Digitized by

26o

The Question Box,

all our travels and movements, in all out com-
ing in and going out, in putting on our
clothes and shoes, at the bath, at the table,
in lighting our lamps, in lying down and sit-
ting down, whatever employment occupies us,
we mark our forehead with the sign of the
Cross. For these and such like rules, if thou
requirest a law in Scriptures, thou shalt find
none; tradition will be pleaded to thee as
originating, custom as confirming, and faith
as observing them M (" De Corona Mil./* 3, 4).

We never could understand why Christians
should be ashamed of that holy symbol, when
St. Paul tells us the mind of the true lover
of Christ: "God forbid that I should glory
save in the Cross of our I^ord Jesus Christ' \
(Gal. vi. 14). A great proof that the re-
formers were not of Christ was the dishonor
they showed to the symbol of man's salvation.
It is the same spirit that animated the pagans
in China when the test of apostasy was the
trampling on the Cross.

SCAPULARS.

Why do Catholics wear the little brown badge,
and what its meaning ?

Have not Catholics a superstitious reverence
for the Scapulars, which they consider sure
charms against all sorts of misfortune?

Digitized by

Ceremonies.

261

If rightly understood, there is no more super-
stition in a Catholic wearing the scapular than
in a soldier wearing his uniform, or a judge of
the Supreme Court his gown. As part of the
religious habit of the Carmelites and other or-
ders, the scapular is a brown broad piece of
cloth with an opening for the head, which
hangs down in front and behind almost to the
ground. The two pieces of square cloth, joined
with two strings, and worn by the people, is
a symbol of this.

1 The wearer of the brown scapular belongs
to the confraternity of Our Lady of Mount Car-
mel, and shares in all the good works and
prayers of that order; undertaking to lead a
good Christian life, he also professes a special
devotion to the Mother of God, and places
himself under her special protection.

CEREMONIES.

Why do you Catholics make so much of a
show in your churches during divine worship ?

Cannot Christians worship God without so
much pomp and ceremony ? I deem it supersti-
tious.

Why do you have so many silly and meaning-
less ceremonies ?

If the ceremonies do appear silly and mean-
ingless, remember that the trouble is not with

Digitized by

262

The Question Box.

us, but with you who do not understand
their beautiful symbolism or know their an-
cient Christian origin. Not a word is said,
not a gesture made, not an action performed
in the Catholic Church but has its deep and
beautiful meaning to the initiated. "Judge
not according to the appearance," said the
I<ord, "but judge a just judgment* ' (John
vii. 24).

We could, perhaps, worship God without
ceremony; but only by going contrary to
human nature, the teaching of the Old and
New Testament, and the constant practice of
the Christian people from the very beginning.

Ceremonial is natural to man. We are not
disembodied spirits, but creatures made up of
body and soul. It is a fact that in everything
else we give expression outwardly to what we
know and feel interiorly. Why, then, should
religion be the one exception ?

Why should ceremony be the law in things
human, viz., in society, in the court-room, in
the army and navy, [the lodge, and yet be de-
barred in things divine?

We might say to one of our questioners :
"Why do we Americans make so much show
over our love of country?" Why, for in-
stance, when Admiral Dewey came to New
York in October, 1899, fresh with the laurels
of the victory at Manila, did the whole city

Digitized by

Ceremonies.

263

clothe itself in bunting, fly the American flag,
and our citizens vie with one another to honor
him and the other heroes of the Spanish- Ameri-
can War, with processions on land and sea,
fireworks, the playing of patriotic airs? A
cynic might have remarked : " Why make such
a fuss over men that merely did their duty? "
The true American answers: "It was to give
expression to the feeling of patriotism."

So Catholics, believing with the certainty of
faith that Jesus Christ is really present upon
the altar, so that our churches are indeed the
temples of the living God, wish to give out-
ward expression to their love of Him. There-
fore silver, gold, flowers, incense, lighted
candles, processions, architecture, sculpture,
painting, music — all strive to pay their hom-
age.

If it were silly or superstitious, how then
do you account for God's sanction of the minu-
test detail of the Mosaic ritual? (Exod. xxvi.,
xxvii., xxviii., Num., Lev.) Our Saviour did
not disdain to use certain ceremonies ; for in-
stance, in curing the deaf and dumb man : "He
put His fingers into his ears, and spitting, He
touched his tongue, and looking up to heaven
He said, Ephpheta, which is, be thou opened "
(Mark vii. 33, 34) ; in curing the blind man,
"He spat on the ground, and made clay of
the spittle, and spread the clay upon his eyes "

Digitized by

264

The Question Box.

(John ix. 6) ; prostrating upon the ground in
the Garden of Gethsemani (Matt. xxvi. 39) ;
invoking a blessing at the Last Supper -(Matt,
xxvi. 26) ; breathing upon the Apostles (John
xx.* 22). So in the Apostolic Church we find
the sacrament of orders administered by the
imposition of hands (I. Tim. iv. 14; II. Tim. -
i. 6), and the sacrament of extreme unction by
the anointing of oil (James v. 14).

There would indeed be reason to object if
these outward ceremonies did not give expres-
sion to internal feelings of reverence and de-
votion; if all Catholics were merely like the
Pharisees of old, who made " clean the outside
of the cup and of the dish, but within were
full of rapine and Uncleanness " (Matt, xxiii.
25). We readily grant that an individual
Catholic may make the sign of the cross or
genuflect in church before the Blessed Sacra-
ment mechanically, out of habit, but it is
totally gratuitous to suppose that the Catholic
people in their outward ceremonial are merely
honoring " God with their lips (externally)
while their hearts are far from Him" (Isa.
xxix. 13).

There are to-day many intelligent non-
Catholics who greatly deplore the ignorance
and vandalism of the Reformation, which, in
doing away with the beautiful symbolism of
the Catholic ritual, deprived men of one of the

Digitized by

Ceremonies.

265

greatest aids to devotion. Indeed, there has
been among certain Protestants in our own
country and England a complete return to the
old ceremonies of the Catholic Church, dis-
carded some four hundred years ago. It is
sad, however, to see them borrow only our
externals, without having a priesthood for their
vestments, a sacrifice for their altar appur-
tenances, or the real presence of Jesus Christ,
to whose honor all the ceremonial and ritual
should tend. Strange, too, that frequently the
very man who objects to what he calls the
formalism of Catholic ceremonial will gladly
submit to every detail of the lodged ritual,
whether he be a Mason, Oddfellow, or
Pythian. Deprive man of the reality, and
sooner or later he will frame for himself a
counterfeit, to satisfy in some way the heart's
inner craving for outward ceremonial. Errpr
is never consistent. (Bridgett, "The Ritual
of the New Testament.")

Why are so many thousands of dollars put
into the building of churches where there are
thousands of poor people sadly in need of even
the necessaries of life ? Should not Christ be
served in his poor? — An unbeliever.

A similar objection was made by the traitor
Judas Iscariot, when Mary Magdalen anointed
the feet of Jesus with the precious ointment.

Digitized by

266

The Question Box.

"Mary therefore took a pound of ointment
of right spikenard, of great price, and anoint-
ed the feet of Jesus. . . . Then one of
His disciples, Judas Iscariot, . . . said,
Why was not this ointment sold for three
hundred pence, and given to the poor? Now
he said this, not because he cared for the poor,
but because he was a thief, and having the
purse, carried the things that were put there-
in.' ' Our Saviour did not find fault with
her, however, for He said: "Let her alone,
that she may keep it against the day of my
burial. For the poor you have always with
you, but Me you have not always" (John
xii. 3-8).

In the same spirit of love for Jesus Christ
the Catholic people to-day, as ever, gladly
spend their hard-earned money that their Lord
God might have a fitting dwelling place upon
earth.

The Jews of the Old Law did not spare gold
or precious stones in the Temple of Solomon
(II. Paral. iii. iv.), which was merely a figure
of the Catholic Church on whose altars Jesus
Christ was to be really present — the Emmanuel
— God with us.

The Catholic Church has ever been pre-emi-
nently the Church of the poor, the Catholic
priest ever their truest friend, as the universal
love of the poor for him abundantly proves.

Digitized by

Devout Practices,

267

Her principles of justice set forth clearly the
duty of capital to provide a just, living wage
for the workingman, and charity is written
large on the page of her history from the
beginning (Leo XIII., "On the Condition of
Labor " ).

The money spent in church-building is well
spent, for it means a practical, substantial
proof of the true faith in Christ and the love
for Him and the brethren, which otherwise
would disappear before the inroads of bur
modern paganism. Every Catholic church
means a new home where the poor are ever wel-
come, to be cared for spiritually, and materially
if need be, by those who remember Christ's
words: "As long as you did it to one of
these my least brethren, you did it to Me"
(Matt. xxv. 40).

I wonder how many dollars our unbelieving
friend devotes annually to charity.

DEVOUT PRACTICES.

Why do you burn fragrant spices during your
services ?

Incense, according to the Old Testament and
the New, is symbolic of prayer. "Let my
prayer, O Lord, be directed as incense in thy
sight" (Ps. cxl. 2). "And golden vials full
of odors, which are the prayers of saints"

Digitized by

268

The Question Box,

(Apoc. v. 8). "Another angel came and
stood before the altar, having a golden censer ;
and there was given him much incense, that
he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon
the golden altar, which is before the throne
of God" (Apoc. viii. 3). The burning of in-
cense before the altar was part of the pre-
scribed ceremonial of the Old Law. "And
Aaron shall burn sweet smelling incense upon
it (the altar) in the morning" (Exod. xxx. 7;
cf. 'xxv. 6 ; xxx. 23 ; Lev. xvi. 13 ; Num. xvi.
46). In the Church of God it is used at
High Mass, Vespers, and Benediction of the
Most Blessed Sacrament.

Why do Catholics sprinkle themselves on enter-
ing the church? What warranty in the Bible
for the use of holy water ? Is not this a super-
stitious practice ?

Catholics use holy water because they be-
lieve that the prayers of the Church in bless-
ing it are efficacious to excite in the well dis-
posed acts of faith, hope, and love in Christ
Jesus, and to drive forth the evil one through
the exorcisms of those vested with divine
authority. St. Paul tells us: " Every creature
of God is good, ... for it is sanctified
by the word of God and prayer* 9 (I. Tim.
iv. 4, 5).

If it were superstitious, how then do you

Digitized by

Devout Practices,

269

account for the miracles wrought at the pool
of Bethsaida ? (John v. 2-4). How explain
the use of holy water by God's commandment
in the Old Law? — viz., " Aaron and his son
shall wash their hands and feet in it (a
brazen laver), when they are going into the
tabernacle" (Exod. xxx. 19, 20); " And he
shall take holy water in an earthen vessel"
(Num. v. 17) ; " Let them be sprinkled with
the water of purification' ' (Num. viii. 7; cf.
Exod. xix. 10-14; Ley. viii. 6; IV. Kings,
v. 10).

Moreover we know that holy water was used
as early as the second century (" Apostolical
Constitution,' ' book viii. ch. 29), and in the
catacombs of Rome (Rock, " Hierurgia," vol.
ii. ch. xiii. p. 258). It is symbolic of the
purity of heart with which Christians ought
to appear before the altar of Jesus Christ.
(Lambing, " Sacramentals of the Church,' ' ch.
viii.; Rock, " Hierurgia," vol. ii. ch. xiii. p.
258.)

Why do you use candles in your Church in the
day-time ?

Why are candles used in the sick-room, or
around the body of the dead?

Historically, the use of candles on the altar
during Mass bears witness to the days of per-
secution, when the early Christians heard Mass

Digitized by

270 The Question Box.

in the darkness of the catacombs under the
city of Rome.

Symbolical^, they bring before the Catho-
lic people Jesus Christ, "the Light of the
World/ 1 " the True Light which enligljteneth
every man that cometh into this world " (John
i. 9, viii. 12), and tell them with the Saviour
that their faith should be manifested before
men and burn brightly in the performance of
good works. "So let your light shine before
men, that they may see your good works, and
glorify your Father who is in heaven* ' (Matt,
v. 16).

Why do Catholic priests wear such peculiar
clothes during services?

The vestments worn by the priest at Mass
mark him a man apart from the world, as in
the Old Law: "And these shall be the vest-
ments which they shall make : a rational and
an ephod, a tunic and a straight linen garment,
a mitre and a girdle. They shall make the
holy vestments for thy brother Aaron and his
sons, that they may do the office of the priest-
hood unto me" (Exod. xxviii. 4).

Symbolically, they call to mind some detail
of our Lord's Passion, for the Mass daily
' ' shows forth the death of the Lord until He
come" (I. Cor. xi. 26). The amice, a linen
covering of the priest's head and shoulders, is

Digitized by

Devout Practices. 271
. 1

symbolic of the linen scarf placed over our
Lord's eyes (Luke xxii. 64) ; the alb, the long
linen garment of the priest, of the white gar-
ment wherewith Herod in mockery clothed
Him (Luke xxiii. 11) ; the cincture a?id stole, of
the cords with which He was bound (John
xviii. 12, 24) ; the chasuble, of the purple gar-
ment ther soldiers gave Him (Mark xv. 17).
The different colors of the vestments worn at
different seasons of the year and on different
feast days are also symbolic — white of inno-
cence, red of martyrdom, purple of penance,
green of hope, and black of mourning.

These vestments naturally seem peculiar to
the eye of the twentieth century, for they all
date back to Roman days — none of them being
later- than the eighth century. In the same
way the dress of the Oriental to-day is strange
to us, as our collars, cuffs, and trousers are
extraordinary to him.

Why do Catholics wear medals? Are they
not similar to the superstitious amulets of the
pagan to prevent disease, ward off danger, etc.?

On the contrary, there is no more supersti-
tion in the wearing of a blessed medal,
stamped with the impression of our Lord,
the Blessed Virgin, or one of the saints, than
there is in a boy or girl wearing a locket con-
taining a mother's picture. They are not

Digitized by

272

The Question Box.

charms, but reminders of Chrises love for us,
or of the perfect sanctity of His saints.

What is an Agnus Dei?

It is a little emblem of blessed wax, enclosed
in a silken covering, worn by Catholics to re-
mind them of Jesus Christ, " the Lamb of God,
who taketh away the sins of the world "
(John i. 29).

Why are ashles placed on the foreheads of
Catholics the first day of Lent?

To make us realize the thought of death, the
priest repeating the words of God to Adam, ' ' for
dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return "
(Gen. iii. 19). Ashes in the Old Law were
always symbolic of penance, the characteristic
virtue of the season of Lent (Job xlii. 6 ; Jonas
iii. 6 ; Isa. lviii. 5, etc.)

Why do you bless palm-branches in your
Church a week before Easter ?

They tell the Catholic people of Christ's
triumphal entry into the Holy City on the first
Palm Sunday. u And others cut down boughs
from the trees, and strewed them in the way 99
(Mark xi. 8).

Why do you baptize church bells?

Bells are not baptized, for only rational

Digitized by

Devout Practices. 273

creatures are fit subjects for Christ's baptism.
They are merely blessed, as are many other
inanimate objects, with a special prayer pre-
scribed by the liturgy. The Bible authority
for this is I. Tim. iv. 4-5: " Every creature
. . . is sanctified by the word of God
and prayer."

What is the meaning of the Forty Hours' De-
votion ?

It is a special time of devotion in which
the Catholic people gather in great numbers
to visit and adore Jesus Christ in the Blessed
Sacrament, to attend Mass and receive Holy
Communion. The worship of Jesus in the
Eucharist is the primary devotion of the Catho-
lic Church, before which all the other devotions
pale as the stars at the coming of dawn.

What is the Vesper service in your Church ?

It is a part of the divine office which every
priest is bound to say daily for the glory of
God and the good of the Universal Church.
It is made up of five psalms, which vary
according to different feasts (generally Pss. 109-
113), a hymn, the Magnificat (I*uke i. 46-55),
and some prayers. In the convents of the old
religious orders the entire office is sung every
day (Matins, Lauds, Prime, Tierce, Sext,
None, Vespers, and Compline) , but because of

Digitized by

274

The Question Box.

its great length only Vespers is sung in the
Catholic churches of to-day, in accordance
with the practice of primitive Christianity:
" speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns,
and spiritual canticles, singing and making
melody in your hearts to the Lord " (Eph. v.
19 ; Col. iii. 16).

SAINT PETER IN ROME.

What particle of proof have we that Peter was
ever in Rome ?

It has been dented, under the stress of con-
troversy, that St. Peter was ever in Rome, and
this false statement is still repeated without
hesitancy by many who have never studied
the question. The best answer to this query
is to cite the many fair-minded non- Catholic
scholars who admit the fact as beyond all ques-
tion; viz., Grotius, Cave, Gardner, Whitby,
Macknight, Hales, Cludius, Mynster, Schaff,
Neander, Steiger, DeWette, Wieseler, Cred-
ner, Bleck, Meyer, Hilgenfeld, Renan, Man-
gold.

"That Peter was at Rome," says Cave,
' * and held the see there for some time, we
fearlessly affirm with the whole multitude of.
the ancients." (" Scriptorum Eccles. His-
toria Literaria," vol. i. p. 5, cited by Iyivius ;
"St. Peter, Bishop of Rome," p. 442.)

Digitized by

Saint Peter in Rome.

275

Dr. Lardner writes : " It is the general, un-
contradicted, disinterested testimony of ancient
writers in the several parts of the world
— Greeks, Latins, Syrians" ("Hist, of the
Apost. and Evang.," ch. xviii.; cited by Al-
natt, Catholic Truth Society publications).

Pearson declares : " Since it has been hand-
ed down from almost the beginning that St.
Peter preached the gospel in Rome, and there
suffered martyrdom, and since no one has ever
affirmed that either Peter or Paul was crowned
with martyrdom elsewhere, I think, with full
security, faith may be given to this account.
(Minor Theological Works, vol. iii. p. 341.)

Whiston, the translator of the works of
Josephus, says : "That St. Peter was at Rome
is so clear in Christian antiquity that it is a
shame for any Protestant to confess that any
Protestant ever denied it " (Memoirs, London,
i75o).

The universally received interpretation of I.
Pet. v. 13, "the Church that is in Babylon
saluteth you," declares that Babylon means
Rome, from which city St. Peter wrote his
Epistle. The " Speaker's Commentary " (Prot-
estant) says : * ' We find an absolute consensus
of ancient interpreters that there Babylon must *
be understood as equivalent to Rome." (C/.
also Bishop Ellicott's Commentary ; cited by
Livius, p. 453-454.)

Digitized by

The Question Box.

One of the greatest proofs, perhaps, is the
fact that although the Protestant scholar
Lipsius spent his entire life endeavoring to
disprove this evident historical fact, the world
of scholars is unmoved by his arguments.
(C/. Hilgenfeld's " Zeitschrift," 1877, pp. 486-
508.)

• What proofs have you for the Roman episco-
pate of the Apostle Peter ?

To one eager to study this question I would
earnestly recommend Father Livius* book on
this subject: "St. Peter, Bishop of Rome"
(London: Burns & Oates, 1888) f or the little
leaflet of the London Catholic Truth Society
by C. F. Alnatt.

" Regarded simply as an event of past his-
tory, St. Peter's Roman episcopate, like other
such events, is a matter of historical evidence.
If judged by this test alone, we claim for it
a more ample and precise verification than
usually obtains for most of those events which
learned, impartial criticism has pronounced to
be historically true ' 7 (Livius, Introd. p. xi.)

1. The Roman episcopate of St. Peter was
never questioned, even by heretics or schis-
matics, until the thirteenth century. Indeed,
until the Reformation it was the universal per-
suasion of the Christian people that from his
see the constitution and authority of the

Digitized by VjOOQ LC

Saint Peter in Rome. 277

Church were derived. It is rather puerile
to deny such a fact, in view of the demands
of controversy" (pp. 4, i93"I97)-

2. The testimony of the Fathers of the first
four centuries — men eminent for their learn-
ing and sanctity — is given, p. 11-36.

3. " As everybody well knows, the memory
of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul has from •
the earliest times till now been inseparably
associated with many places, buildings, and
other material objects in Rome ; amongst these,
the dungeons in which they were imprisoned,
the chains of St. Peter, the place of his martyr-
dom, and the tombs of the Apostles have ever
been the most celebrated. Moreover, not a
few churches in the very earliest times were
built in some of the more famous places, where
either the Apostles themselves, or their dis-
ciples, such as St. Pudens and his family,
Aquila and Priscilla, and others, were used
to reside. And here, too, we may mention the
feast of the chair of St. Peter, as well as the
material chair itself of the Apostle, which is
preserved in Rome until the present day "
(p. 38, 105-187).

4. It is a striking fact that none of the
Eastern schismatics who broke away from
Rome in the early days ever denied the Ro-
man episcopate of St. Peter, although it would
have proved one of the strongest justifications

Digitized by

278

The Question Box.

of their schism (p. 17 et seq., p. 57, pp. 193
et seq., 288, 349 et seq., 378 et seq.)

5. The many objections brought forward
since the Reformation by non-Catholic con-
troversialists are ably answered by Father
Livius, viz., the silence of the Acts and the
Epistles of St. Paul (pp. 50-56), the mean-
ing of Babylon in I. Pet. v. 13 (pp. 56-59),
the rationalistic theory (pp. 63-65; cf. pp. 113,
129, 178-181, 193, 196, 201, 206, 235, 241 et
seq., 272-275, 294, 298 et seq., 323, 337 et seq.,
390-392, 424, 438 et seq., 445, 459 et seq.s 465
et seq., 511-519).

THE PAPAL AUTHORITY.

Is not the ruling power of the Roman Popes a
usurpation ?

Where does the Bible declare that Jesus ap-
pointed a Pope ?

What proof does Scripture give that Peter had
any authority over the other disciples ?

Were not all the Apostles equal?

Did not Jesus give to all the power of binding
and loosing (Matt, xviii. 18).

Matt. xvi. 18, 19: "Thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build my Church, and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give to thee the keys of the king-
dom of Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt

Digitized by

The Papal Authority, 279

bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in
heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on
earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.' '

Luke xxii. 31-32: "Simon, Simon, behold
Satan hath desired to have you, that he may
sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee,
that thy faith fail not; and thou being once
converted, confirm thy brethren."

John xxi. 15-17: "Jesus saith to Simon
Peter : Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me
more than these ? He said to Him : Yea,
Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee. He
saith to him : Feed my lambs. He saith to
, him again : Simon, son of John, lovest thou
Me ? He said to Him : Yea, Lord, thou know-
est that I love Thee. He saith to him : Feed
my lambs. He saith to him the third time :
Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me ? Peter
was grieved because He had said to him the
third time : Lovest thou Me ? And he said to
Him : Lord, thou knowest all things ; Thou
knowest that I love Thee. He said to him :
Feed my sheep "

A careful study of all these words clearly
proves that St. Peter held a unique place
among the twelve Apostles, and that Jesus
Christ made him His vicar and representative
on earth.

1. Jesus Christ the Rock (I. Cor. x. 4;
Matt. xxi. 42 ; Acts iv. 11 ; Eph. ii. 20-22 ; I.

Digitized by

28o

The Question Box,

Pet. ii. 6) promised to make Peter the rock-
foundation of the Church in association with
Himself (Matt. xvi. 18). The foundation of
a building gives it unity, strength, and stabil-
ity (Matt. vii. 24, 25) ; so the Church built on
Peter is, through him, to be kept for ever
strong and united in government and in doc-
trine.

2. Christ the Key-bearer (Apoc. iii. 7) prom-
ises to make Peter Key-bearer in His king-
dom ; that is, to have complete power and juris-
diction in the Church.

3. In Luke xxii. Christ prays for Peter
that his faith ever remain strong and pure to
strengthen the faith of the wavering and
doubting brethren.

4. Christ the Good Shepherd (John x. 11)
plainly gives to Peter His own full power as
Shepherd (John xxi. 15).

All the Apostles were commissioned in com-
mon to establish the Church, to preach the gos-
pel, to baptize (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20), to forgive
sins (John xx. 23), to say Mass (Luke xxii. 19),
, etc.; but Peter alone was made the Rock, the
Key-bearer, the Confirmer of the brethren, and
the Shepherd of the flock. This has ever been
the witness of Catholic tradition. (See "A
Manual of Catholic Theology,' ' vol. ii. p. 316-
327; " Faith of Catholics,' 1 vol. ii. pp. 1-59).
Indeed, our Lord indicated the pre-eminence

Digitized by

The Papal Authority. 281

of St. Peter by the promised change of name
at their first meeting: "Thou art Simon the
son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas,
which is interpreted Peter" (John i. 42).
Throughout the New Testament his name is
given first (Matt. x. 2 ; Mark iii. 16 ; Luke
vi. 14 ; Acts i. 13) ; and he is treated as
the leader of the twelve (Matt. xvii. 23-26;
xxvi. 37-40 ; Mark v. 37 ; xvi. 7 ; Luke v. 2-
10; ix. 20, etc.) He presides at the elec-
tion of Matthias (Acts i. 15) ; he is the first
preacher of the Gospel and the first converter
of the gentiles (Acts ii. 14 et seg., x. 9 et seq.)\
he is the first to work miracles (Acts* iii.
6) .; he condemns the guilty Ananias and
Saphira (Acts v. 1-10) ; the Church prays un-
ceasingly for his release from prison (xii. 1-
15) ; he settles the dispute at the first Coun-
cil of Jerusalem (xv. 7-12); he is visited by
St. Paul (Gal. i. 18, 19, etc.)

The exercise of Papal supremacy, and the
strong steady witness to it in the pages of
Christian history, may be studied in many
volumes which treat this subject at great
length. (Liviusy " St. Peter, Bishop of Rome " ;
Allies " St. Peter, His Name and His Office,' '
"The See of Peter," "Church and State,"
"The Throne of the Fisherman " ; Riving ton,
* 1 Authority — Dependence, ' ' " The Primitive
Church and the See of Peter"; Allnatty

Digitized by

282

The Question Box.

"Cathedra Petri"; Kenrick, "The Primacy
of the Apostolic See."; Smith, "Papal Su-
premacy and Infallibility," Catholic Truth So-
ciety publications; Hettinger, "The Supre-
macy of the Apostolic See."

Is it probable that such a power, recognized
to-day by the vast majority of the Christian
people, is a usurpation ? It was in possession
at the time of the Reformation, and no valid
argument has ever been produced to in-
validate the Catholic claim. Is it probable
" that many various nations will agree that the.
head of their religion should be external to
themselves ? Will the members of these vari-
ous and zealous nations, who are equal in their
episcopal power, allow a brother to arrange
their precedence, control their actions, ter-
minate their disputes, rule them as one flock,
and that for fifteen centuries together ? " (" See
of Peter," p. 87).

IS CHRIST THE ROCK ?

Does not the rock (Matt. xvi. 18) mean Christ ?

The word rock refers to St. Peter, as many
Protestant commentators of the passage have
admitted, v. g., Weiss, Keil, Mansel, Bloom-
field, Marsh, Thompson, Alford, Rosenmuller,
etc. Thompson, of Glasgow, in his Monatesseron
says (p. 194) : " Peter was the rock on which

Digitized by

Is Christ the Rock?

283

Christ said his Church should be built. To
this the connection and scope of the :passage
agree. There seems to .be something forced in
every other construction. . . . Protestants
have betrayed unnecessary fears, and have
therefore used all the hardihood of lawless
criticism in their attempts to reason away the
Catholic interpretation.' '

Does not the use of the two different words,
petros and petra, in Matt. xvi. 18 prove that
Peter and rock are not identical ?

This argument is obsolete to-day, for the
study of Syriac in the past century has told us
that in the vernacular of Palestine in our
Lord's time Syriac was the language used,
and in that version of the Scriptures (the Pesh-
ito) the same word is employed for Peter and
rock, thus: "Thou art Kepha, and upon this
Kepha I will build My Church." Thus scholar-
ship again robs the old-time controversialist
of one of his pet arguments against the Pri-
macy.

If Christ is the Supreme Head of the Church,
what need is there of the Pope? Is it not
derogatory to Christ to have a mere man at the
head of -His Church ?

The will of Christ was to establish His
Church as a visible society in the world, and,

Digitized by

284 The Question Box,

to prevent anarchy in doctrine and govern-
ment, He chose & central authority on earth to
represent His divine authority. God seldom
acts directly, but uses human agencies as the
ministers of His will. The Primacy is a ques-
tion of fact to be learned from a study of
Scripture and history.

The supremacy of the Popes is no more
derogatory to Christ than the supremacy of
the high-priest under the Old Law to the
authority of God. A visible church needs a
local government upon earth according to the
divine plan. The authority of Christ can be
vested in a man, to rule His Church, just as
the truth and the grace of Christ can be given
men through the ministry of human agents.

Is not Christ called the only foundation of the
Church? "For other foundation can no man
lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ " (I.
Cor. iii. 11).

Is not Christ called the rock, the stone, etc., in
the Bible ? " This is the stone which was set at
naught by the builders," etc. (Acts iv. 11);
"And that rock was Christ" (I. Cor. x. 4).

Catholics do not claim that Peter is the
head of the Church independently of Christ,
which indeed would be blasphemy ; but that he
is the visible head on earth, representing the
chief and invisible Head, Christ Jesus in

Digitized by

Is Christ the Rock?

285

heaven. He is the rock whereon Christ, the
Divine Builder, has built His Church, that
from His divinely given strength the Church
might ever be kept one, firm and strong.
Christ, as the rock primarily, could make Peter
rock also, even as Christ, as chief Shepherd
(John x. 11), could make Peter shepherd
of the flock after he had gone (John xxi. 15).

Fair-minded Protestant commentators have
granted that the expression rock, or founda-
tion, may be applied to either Christ or St>
Peter, "since the two expressions are em-
ployed in two very different senses" (Bloom-
field in Matt. xvi. 18).

Indeed, we find the word foundation applied
even to the Apostles and the prophets in Eph.
ii. 20, and surely they were not foundations in
the same sense as Christ. The meaning of I.
Cor. iii. 11 is plain : the Apostle declares that
our Lord is the only one in whom our hope of
salvation should rest, for " there is no other
name under heaven given to man whereby we
must be saved" (Acts iv. 12).

In Acts iv. 11 St. Peter tells the Jews that
the Messias whom they rejected is now glori-
fied, even as the rejected stone is afterwards
given by the builders a prominent place in the
building. How any of these texts contradict
Matt. xvi. we fail to understand.

Digitized by

286

The Question Box.

Are not all the Apostles equal ? For we read
in Eph. ii. 20 that the Church was built upon
them all; " built upon, the foundation of the
Apostles and Prophets" (cf. Apoc. xxi. 14).

The Church is indeed built upon all the
Apostlfes and Prophets, but not in the same
manner, for surely the prophets were not teach-
ers of Christ in the same sense as the Apostles.
The United States is built upon the judiciary,
legislature, and executive. Does that make all
these three branches of the government similar
in function, and prove that M*r. Roosevelt is
not the President of our country? K

If the Apostles knew that Peter was their
head, why then did they dispute as to who was
the greatest ? (Luke xxii. 24).

Even suppose that before the descent of the
Holy Spirit. (Acts ii.) the Apostles were doubt-
ful of the primacy of St. Peter; they were also
ignorant of the passion and resurrection of the
Saviou», although he had frequently prophesied
it (Luke ix. 45 xviii. 34 ; xxiv. 25; Matt,
xx. 17-19).

Our Lord could have ended the dispute at <
once by declaring that there would be no
chief or " greatest " apostle in His kingdom,
if that were the fact. On the contrary, He im-
plies by His comparison that there will be a
ruler among them, although his character

Digitized by

Is Christ the Rock?

287

should5 be child-like and humble, as distinct
from the pagan princes of the time. I quote
the Protestant version: "TJie kings of the
gentiles exercise lordiship over them : and they
that exercise authority upon them are called
benefactors, But ye shall not be so (i.e.,
proud)'; but he that is greatest among you% let
him be as- the younger ; and he that is chief , as
he that doth serve " (I,uke xxii. 25-26). He
then, moreover,, cites His-own example — surely
not to- deny His headship, but to give them a
divine example of humility. "I am among
you as he that serveth " (v. 27), an allusion
to his having washed their feet as a slave
(John xiir. 5).

And finally, iir verse 32, he actually promises
that St. Peter shall be the chief Apostle toaon-
firm the faith, of the wavering brethren: "I
have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not ;
and thou, being once converted, confirm thy
brethren,"

Ib not the fact that the Apostles sent St.
Peter and St. John to confirm the Samaritans
proof positive that he exercised] no supreme
power over the other Apostles ? (Acts viih 14)..

Not at alL " For although St. Luke men-
tions Peter and John, he sets Peter first ; and
in his record of what happened to Simon, John
acts the second part, and it is Peter alone who

Digitized by

288

The Question Box,

teaches, commands, judges, and condemns
with authority, as the head and supreme ruler "
(cf. Acts viii. 19-23; Allies, "St. Peter, His
Name and His Office," pp. 164-166).

Besides, Josephus tells us that in the reign
of Nero the Jews sent ten legates of their
princes, their high-priest, Ishmael, and an»
other Jewish priest. We see, therefore, that
there is nothing incredible in two persons of
unequal rank being sent on a joint mission in
those times (Rivington, preface to Allies' ' ' St.
Peter,' ' p. ix.)

Did Peter act as Pope in the Council of Jeru-
salem ? (Acts xv.) If so, why did James preside,
and give the definitive sentence ?

There is no proof that the Apostle James pre-
sided at the Council of Jerusalem, or that he de-
cided any question whatsoever. The Greek
word Krino, " I judge " (xv. 19), or " I am of
the opinion/ 7 does not imply an authoritative
decision. On the contrary, we notice that the
dispute over circumcision which was carried
on first in Antioch, and renewed again at the
Council, ceased when Peter arose, declared how
he had been chosen to announce the gospel to
the gentiles, and rebuked those who were in-
sisting on the observances of the Old Law.
"And all the multitude held their peace-.' '
Whoever rises to speak after this merely

Digitized by

Is Christ the Rock?

289

confirms what St. Peter said by narrating the
miracles wrought among the gentiles, as did
St. Paul and Barnabas, or citing the pro-
phets, and suggesting a practical remedy of
settling the dispute, as did St. James.

Why is it that Paul makes no mention of the
Pope when he speaks of the various offices in
the Church ? (1. Cor. xii. 28, and Eph. iv. 11).

Because it is not the purpose of St. Paul to
describe the hierarchy, but to show that as in
the body there are different members, so in
Christ's body, the Church, there are different
ofiices — apostles, prophets, doctors, etc. You
could not argue that because the Council of
Trent declares the hierarchy to consist of
bishops, priests, and deacons, without special
mention of the Pope, it thereby denies his
primacy. Besides, conditions were vastly dif-
ferent in Apostolic times, for the Catholic
Church teaches that each Apostle was in-
fallible with and under the Pope, while to-day
the plenitude of Apostolic power of teaching
and ruling resides only in the Bishop of Rome.

Did Paul acknowledge Peter as his superior
when he " withstood him to the face " ? (Gal. ii.
11-14).

This rebuke of St. Peter by St. Paul cannot
logically be brought forward as an argument

Digitized by

290 The Question Box.

against the Primacy, unless it be first proved,
that it is always unlawful for an inferior to cor-
rect a superior. But this is not the teaching erf '
Christianity (Matt, xviii. 15). To reprehend'
one's superior in defenceof justice and of truth,
firmly though with due deference to his author-
ity, may sometimes be an imperative duty.
There are several instances in the history of
the Church where holy men and women, like
St. Bernard, St. Thomas of Canterbury, and
St. Catherine of Siena, have rebuked Popes
while fully acknowledging their authority.

St. Alphonsus thus answers this objection
(" Verity della Fede," p. iii.c. vii. 12): "As
to the reprehension of St. Peter by St. Paul,
. . . some, as St. Jerome (Com. in Gal. ii.
n), answer that this dispute was preconcerted
purposely to tranquillize the Jews ; but others,
with St. Augustine (Epistle 82 n. 22), St. Cyp-
rian (Ad. Quint., ep. 71), St. Gregory (Sup.
Ezech., Horn. 18), St. Thomas (2. 2. q. 33,
a. 4 ad 2), and St. Jerome himself (Adv.
Pelag., lib. i. 1), when he afterwards retracted,
say more. commonly, and with greater probabil-
ity, that these words were a real reprehension,
but that there was no question of doctrine in-
volved; viz., as to whether, under the Evan-
gelical law, the legal observances of the Jews
were to be still maintained. St. <Peter was
well aware that these observances were to be

Digitized by

Is Christ the Rock?

2gi

abolished; nay more, before this^— when St.
Paul brought tidings of what the converted
Jews were doing at Antioch, and how they
would have the gentiles who believed to be
circumcised — it was St. Peter who severely
blamed such a pretension, saying : * Now, there-
fore, why tempt you God, to put a yoke upon
the necks of the disciples, which neither our
fathers nor we have been able to bear ? * (Acts
xv. 10) . But in this case the question was
one only of a point of discipline and expedi;-
ence ; that is* whether or not it was then fit-
ting and expedient to wholly abolish the
Mosaic I^aw. For though it was already dead,
it had not yet become deadly to those who
observed it (cf. Acts xvi. 3, where St. Paul
has Timothy circumcised). ... It was
with good reason, however, that St. Paul after-
wards blamed St. Peter, when, from fear of
displeasing the Jewish converts, he separated
from the gentiles, who did not observe the
Mosaic Iyaw : for at that time it was of more
importance not to shock the gentile believers,
who-were many, than not to displease the Jew-
ish converts, who were few in number, and ought
to have had no reasonable grounds- for scandal
because the uncircumcised did not follow their
customs.' ' (Wvius, "St. Peter, Bishop of
Rome," pp. 334-348, who also cites Dollinger,
" First Age of the Church," vol, i> pp. 79-105.)

Digitized by

292 The Question Box. '

THE POPES IN HISTORY.

Did not Pope Gregory the Great repudiate the
title of Universal Bishop?

Pope Gregory tells us that he rejected the
title because he took it to involve a claim of
being the one only bishop (lib. v. epis. 21,
ad Const. Aug.) When John the Faster,
Patriarch of Constantinople, proudly called
himself " Ecumenical Bishop,' * Gregory to re-
buke him humbly called himself " the servant
of the servants of God " (servus servorum Dei)
— a title which has always been retained by his
successors. He by no means denies his uni-
versal jurisdiction; for, with regard to Con-
stantinople, he writes: "As to what they say
of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts
that it is subject to the Apostolic See ? This is
constantly owned by the most pious Emperor,
and by our brother the Bishop of that city"
(lib. ix. ep. 12). And again: " It is evident
to all acquainted with the gospel, that by our
lord's words the care of the whole Church
was committed to St. Peter, Apostle, and prince
of all the Apostles " : John xxi. 17 ; I^uke xxii.
32 ; Matt. xvi. 17-19 (lib. v. ep. xx.; Ryder,
' 'Catholic Controversy.1')

By what right did Alexander VI. divide the
Spanish and Portuguese possessions in the New

Digitized by

The Popes in History.

293

World ? Was not that an unwarranted assump-
tion of power ?

Alexander VI. merely did wliat international
treaties or congresses do to-day ; that is, regu-
late the rights of different nations so as to
avoid as far as possible the danger of war. At
the date of the Bull " Inter Caetera " (May 4,
I493) all the European nations acknowledged
Rome — the centre of Christendom — as the Su-
preme Court of international law. Relations
between Spain and Portugal were strained at
the time, so that war was imminent, threaten-
ing to prevent the peaceful explorations of the
New World, and the preaching of the gos-
pel to the heathen. The Bull did not, as
some pretend, confer upon the two kings
lands which the Pope owned or pretended to
own, but only marked out the limits in which
the two nations could operate without danger
of conflict. As a matter of fact, by thus pre-
venting war between the two countries, Alex-
ander VI. helped the opening up of America
(Amer. Cath. Quarterly y vol. iii. p. 338-340).

Was there not at one time (A. D. 855-857) a
female Pope ?

No; this fable is rejected by Protest-
ant and infidel scholars; e.g., Blondel, I^eib-
nitz, Gibbon, Bayle, Casaubon, Jurien, Bas-
nage, Burnet, Cave, Gabler, Mosheim, Giese-

Digitized by

294

The Question Box.

ler, Shrockl, Neander, etc. Indeed, as Bene-,
diet III. (September 29, 853) immediately
succeeded Leo IV. '.(July 17, 855), there was
no interval left for the alleged two years' reign
of the Popess Joan (Gibbon, 4 * Decline and
Fall," ch. xlix.) The subject is exhaustively
treated by Dollinger, " Papal Fables/ ' p. 1-45.

Did not the Popes forge a number of docu-
ments, now known as the False Decretals, to es-
tablish fheir monstrous claim of universal do-
minion ?

It has been conclusively proved, by both
Catholic and Protestant critics, that the " False
Decretals" did not originate in Rome, but in
Western France, about a.d. 845-857. The
forgeries in the collection were not compiled in
the interests of the Popes at all, but directly
to restrict the power of the metropolitans, and
relieve the bishops from oppression by the
secular jaower. This is admitted by Prot-
estant scholars, as Splitter, Knust, Vasser-
schleben, Walter, and Moehler.

"In fact, there is not a single prerogative
or .privilege of Rome asserted in the False
Decretals which was not generally recognized
as the common law of ihe Christian Church.
They changed nothing, altered -nothing, added
^nothing ; at most they only put into convenient
sh^pe what was before less easy of access,

Digitized by

The Popes in History.

295

and so helped to popularize a doctrine which
was sometimes forgotten by local prelates, and
to keep before their minds ±hat dependence on
the Holy See -which is the central doctrine of
Catholic ecclesiastical discipline ' ' (Rev. R. F.
Clarke, S.J., Historical Papers, p. 44, Catholic
Truth Society publications). Catholic critics
like Cardinal de Cusa, the Ballerini, Bellarmin,
and Baronius proved long ago that these docu-
ments were forgeries. The Popes saw them
disappear with perfect equanimity, for their
power ;i?ested not on them, but on the words
of Christ.

What became of the Papal succession at the
time of the great Western Schism (A.D. 137B-
1417).

Were there not at one time three men, each
claiming to be the real Pope ?

How can you claim your Church was always
one, when for forty years it was destroyed by
the Western Schism?

The Papal line was in no way broken by
the jgreat Western Schism, for there was
always a true Pope; it seems historically
most probable that Urban VI. was the validly
elected Pope, April 9, 1378. So, after care-
ful consideration, think many Catholic (Hefele,
Papencordt, Hergenrother, Heinrich) and non-
Catholic historians (Xeo, Hinschius, Siebe-

Digitized by

296

The Question Box.

king, Lindner, Gregorovius, Erler ; cf. Pastor,
4 * History of the Popes," vol. i. p. 102) . In that
case his successors during the schism, Boni-
face IX., Innocent VII., Gregory XII.,
formed the direct line of legitimate Popes, and
the others, Clement VII., Benedict XIII.,
Alexander V., John XXIII., were merely anti-
popes.

We must remember, too, "that the schism
was not a schism in the ordinary sense of
the term. For by schism is ordinarily meant
withdrawal of obedience from one who is known
to be the unquestionably legitimate Roman
Pontiff. It is quite possible and likely that
the authors of the mischief, whom we cannot
but identify with the cardinals who withdrew
from Urban after electing him, were schis-
matics in the true sense. But the name is
not truly applicable to the vast number
of prelates and Christian people who, amidst
so many conflicting testimonies, were utterly
unable to discover which was the true Pontiff.
They were not schismatics, because they ac-
knowledged the Papal authority, did their best
to discover who was its true living incumbent,
and were prepared to submit at once when
the discovery was made.

"There was, moreover, a true Pope all the
time, for the fact that this truth was involved
in doubt did not make it less a truth ; and

Digitized by

The Popes in History.

297

this true Pope was a. true fountain of authority
and a true centre of unity to all the world M
(Rev. Sydney Smith, S.J., " The Great Schism
of the West," Catholic Truth Society publi-
cations). The succession to the throne of
England was not interrupted because at
various times pretenders rose up to claim it.

In 1876 there was considerable doubt regard-
ing the validity of the election of President
Hayes. Suppose a Civil War arose on the
matter between Democrats and Republicans.
Both sides would agree that there was one
President; the only question would be which
is the legitimate one. So with the Pope and
anti-popes in the fifteenth century. All the
Catholics of the time believed firmly that there
was but one Pope ; the only question was, which
was the legitimate one.

Catholics, of course, realize that this schism
caused great harm to souls, and weakened in
the hearts of many the true reverence for the
Papal power which has ever been the mark
of true Christianity. In a measure it pre-
pared the way for the schism of the sixteenth
century, whereby many lost for themselves
and their descendants the pure gospel of
Christ.

Still, the true succession went on through
Martin V., the choice of the Council of Con-
stance, and continues to this day unimpaired —

Digitized by

298 The Question Box.

a proof to every true follower of Christ of
the supernatural character of the bait of Peter,
which has weathered many a storm by the
power of Christ, the Son of God. (Alzog, vol,
ii. p. 845, et seq~; Pastor, " History of the
Popes,1 ' vol. i.; Smith, Catholic Truth Society
publications ; American Cathoiic Quarterly \ aId.
1891, p. 67.)

Does not the Primacy of the Pope interfere
with the rights of individual bishops ?

Not at all. The Pope does not absorb all
episcopal* authority.

Suppose Peter was primate, and Bishop of
Rome, how do you prove that his authority has
been transferred all down the centuries to [the
Pope?

It is evident that the divine society estab-
lished by Christ was to continue until the end,
just as He established it; for He guaranteed
its permanence by His own. abiding presence
and the Holy Spirit's (Matt. xxviiL.20; John,
xiv. 16, 26)..

Peter, therefore^ must ever abide in, the
Church asdts firm foundation; (Matt, xvi.), its
perpetual confirmer of the faith (I^uke xxii.),
and its ruler and. shepherd. (John xxi. ) Unliess
our Saviour providedfbr the succession. in Peter's
primatial office, His work would: not have been'

Digitized by

The Popes in History.

299

as well: done as the work of the founders of
our Republic, . who provided against anarchy
in the appointment of presidents to succeed
one another as long- as the United States
would last. Surely the All- Wise Son of God
was wiser than statesmen and politicians.

No one. outside the Bishop of Rome ever
claimed to be St. Peter's successor, whilst all
history i& the witness of the universality of
his claim.

Your Pope is Anti-Christ, Does not he wear
the number 666 in his belt^-the mark of the
beast? (Rev, xiii. 18).

My questioner has fallen far behind his in-
telligent Protestant brethren, who reject as
mere raving this old-time absurdity, tuther
was tiie first to set the fashion when he wrote
his pamphlet " Against the Execrable Bull of
Anti-Christ," in answer to the document that
condemned1 him. It. was- an argument to catch
the ignorant and unthinking multitude. So
our Saviour had said: "The disciple is not
above the Master, nor the- servant above his
Ivord. . . . If they have called the good
man of the house Beelzebub* how much more
them of his household? (Matt. x. 24, 25;
John xvi. 2^ 3) .

If the Pope is: the successor of St. Peter, why.

Digitizeci by

3<X) The Question Box.

don't he imitate him in simplicity of life ? Why
ape the pomp and luxury of worldly princes ?

The greater number of the Popes have been
remarkable for their holiness of life. Surely
the private life of Pope I^eo XIII. is full of
Apostolic simplicity. As continually dealing
with temporal rulers, the Popes have followed
the customs of European princes. For many
years indeed the Papal Court was recognized as
the {Supreme Court of Christendom, and kings
and emperors were proud to do him homage.
Catholics, moreover, do not pretend to apolo-
gize for the failings of individual Popes.

Is it not disgusting that your Pope claims to
be a temporal ruler ? Did not the Saviour say :
" My Kingdom is not of this world " ?

The temporal power of the Pope is neces-
sary for the perfect freedom and independence
of the Holy See. Once admit the doctrine of
the Primacy — that the Pope is the head of the
Universal Church — and it follows logically that
the Pope, to be free to teach and guide his
entire flock, ought not to be subject to any
authority outside himself. If he be subject to
a prince, laws impairing his freedom of action
may be passed in the interests of the government
to which he is subject, and Catholics of the other
nations would naturally view with suspicion
letters of a Pope that might merely voice the

Digitized by

The Popes in History.

301

views of a foreign civil ruler. Even to-day,
when the Pope is still independent because of
his continued protest against the spoliation of
1870, although practically a prisoner in the
Vatican, the Italian government has suppressed
newspapers favoring the claims of the Holy
See, and has forbidden a representative of the
Pope to represent him at the Hague Confer-
ence. Napoleon's object in bringing Pius VII.
to France was undoubtedly to make him a
pliant tool of French interests in Europe. The
sojourn of the Popes at Avignon in the four-
teenth century, called the Babylonian Captivity
(1309-1378), merited the protest of the Catho-
lics of other nations, who demanded the return
to Rome because of the predominant influence
of France at the Papal Court.

The Pope, therefore, as ruler of Christ's
Church must be independent from the very
nature of his office, and this independence can-
not be had to the full unless he possesses a.
territory — large or small, it matters not-— which
is entirely his own. Since the fifth century the
Popes possessed political power in Rome,
which finally developed into what were known
as the Papal States. For centuries they held
and exercised temporal power by a title better
than that of any ruler of the world to-day.

In our own country we have a striking
illustration of the principle on which we claim

Digitized by

302

The Question Box.

the temporal power of the Pope rests. The
framers af our Constitution, to preserve the
independence and free action of President and
Congress, willed that a small territory called
the District of Columbia should be free from
any State authority, and directly dependent up-
on Congress. Although more numerous than
the inhabitants of certain States, the citizens of
the District have no representatives in Congress*
and have no right to vote on national or even
local issues. So in the Catholic Church:
there has been for centuries a territory re-
served .to the Sovereign Pontiff, to preserve him
independent of any temporal ruler, and insure
his free and untrammelled relations with the
nations of the world.

No wonder, then, that the Ex>man See has
protested against the outrage and injustice,
willed not by the Italian people but by a small
body of Freemasons and anti- Christians, who
now see Italy on the verge of national bank-
ruptcy. **Qui mange du Pape en meurtM — •
44 He who eats the Pope dies," said Thiers, a£
the present Italian government will one day
learn. (Amer. Cath. Quarte?tyy Jan., 1892 ;
1886, p. 193; 1891, pp. 330, 569; Cardinal
Manning, " The Temporal Power.")

What is the Catholic argument for Papal in-
fallibility ?

Digitized by

'The Popes in History. 303

We have already seen that Christ estab-
lished a divine, infallible authority to teach
His gospel until the end of the world, just as
He taught it.

Once this is admitted, it follows logically that
the Supreme Head of this infallible Church
must needs be infallible; For if St. Peter or
his successor, speaking authoritatively to the
Church, could teach false doctrine, then he
wotfld instantly cease to be the firm rock-
foundation on which Christ built His Church,
the gates of hell would prevail, error would be
sanctioned by God in heaven (Matt. xvi. 18,
19) , the prayer of Christ for Peter personally
would be fruitless, for the faith of the brethren
would not /be strengthened (Luke xxii. 32),
and <the whole flock of Christ would be de-
prived of the true food of divine faith (John
xxi. 15-17)-

Does it not seem probable that if in these
United States the framers of our Republic were
wise enough to establish a Supreme Court to
settle practically and finally all disputes re-
garding the Constitution, in the Church the
All-Wise Son of God, foreseeing and pro-
phesying that false teachers would arise (" For
there will arise false Christs and false pro-
phets," Mark xiii. 22), would have provided a
-Supreme Court to infallibly (else no man is
bound to believe) decide every controversy

Digitized by

304

The Question Box.

about written or unwritten doctrine? What
has the Protestant denial of one Pope brought
about save the creating of many, and an
anarchy of opinion destructive among mil-
lions of all supernatural religion whatsoever?
(Lyons, " Christianity and Infallibility " ;
Schanz, " A Christian Apology," vol. iii. ch.
xiv.)

Must Catholics believe that every utterance of
the Pope is infallibly true ?

By no means. The definition of the Vati-
can Council (" On the Church of Christ," ch.
iv.) is as follows: "Therefore faithfully ad-
hering to the traditions of the Christian faith,
which has come down to us from the begin-
ning, ... we teach and define it to be,
a doctrine divinely revealed, that the Roman
Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra — that is,
when he in the exercise of the office of
pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue
of his supreme apostolic authority, defines a
doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held
by the Universal Church, by the divine as-
sistance promised him in Blessed Peter, pos-
sesses that infallibility with which the Divine
Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in
the definition of a doctrine regarding faith or
morals.' ' The Pope, therefore, is infallible
only :

Digitized by

The Popes in History.

305

1. When he speaks £*r cathedra — i.e., as su-
preme teacher of the Universal Church. He is
not infallible as a private theologian, preacher
or author, as local bishop, archbishop or pri-
mate, or as supreme legislator, judge or ruler.

2. When he defines a doctrine — when he
gives an absolutely final decision.

3. When he treats of faith or morals, in-
cluding the whole revealed Word of God, and
all truths of philosophy and facts of history
which are essential to the preservation, explana-
tion, and defence of the content of revelation —
v. g., the existence of substance, the fact that
St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, the interpre-
tation of Holy Scripture and the writings of
the true and false teachers of the gospel.

4. When he clearly manifests his intention
to bind the Universal Church (American Cath.
Quarterly, 1893, p. 677).

How can a man be infallible ? Is that not a
prerogative of God alone?

God alone is absolutely infallible, for He
alone is Absolute Truth that can neither de-
ceive nor be deceived. He can, however, for a
certain purpose — for example, to maintain His
Church in unity of faith — make the Pope the
true mouthpiece of His gospel by divinely safe-
guarding him from error when he teaches the
Universal Church. It is a question of fact to

Digitized by

3o6

The Question Box.

be learned from the witness of Scripture and
history. •

How can an intelligent man believe that the
Pope is- exempted from the- sins common to » hu-
manity?

Catholics do not believe this. Infallibility
has nothing whatever to do with the personal
moral character of the Pope; He may com-
mit sin as any other Catholic, and he is bound
to use the same divine means of pardon, the
sacrament of penance. There is absolutely no
connection between the two ideas of impeccabil-
ity, which means immunity from sin in keeping
the moral law, and in fallibility ', or freedom from
error in teaching the Church the' doctrines of
Christ.

Do Catholics hold that the Pope's utterances
are inspired, like the Bible?

No. Inspiration implies a direct revelation
of truth by the Holy Ghost, whereby God is
truly the author of the written or spoken word.

Infallibility merely implies- a divine assist-
ance whereby the official teaching^ thePbpeis,
under certain conditions, guaranteed from error.

"Some have thought that by the- privilege
of infallibility was- intended a quality inherent
in the person, whereby as an inspired^ man?
he could at any time; and on any subject, dfe*

Digitized by

The Popes in History.

307

clare the truth. Infallibility is not a quality
inherent in any person, but an assistance
attached to an office ; and its operation . . .
is not the discovery of new truths, but the
guardianship of old ones. It is simply an as-
sistance of the Spirit of Truth by whom Chris-
tianity was revealed, whereby the head of the
Church is enabled to guard the original de-
posit of revelation, and iaithfiilly declare it to
all ages" (Manning, " Story of the Vatican
Council," p. 193).

Does not your Pope pretend to make wrong
right, by claiming the power of dispensation ?

The Pope makes no such claim. A dispen-
sation is a relaxation of some law — z>. g.} the
law of fasting. A legislator has power not
only to make laws, but for sufficient rea-
son to free some from their observance. This
holds good in all systems of law — v. g., Eng-
lish licenses in mortmain. Papal dispensa-
tions— direct or delegated— -are only granted
for things which would not be wrong, were
they not forbidden by the legislator; they
remove the prohibition, and in the particu-
lar instance the thing ceases to be wrong.

It is false to pretend, as my questioner does,
that the Pope or any one can dispense from
the eternal laws of God, or from essential moral
duties, for these are beyond man's power to

Digitized by

3o8

The Question Box.

tamper with. For instance, when Henry VIII.
demanded a dispensation to marry Ann Boleyn,
or when Napoleon desired Pius VII. to grant
a divorce to his son Jerome, the answer of
both Pontiffs was that they had not the power
to dispense from the law of God.

Luther, on the contrary, could dispense
himself from his vows and marry a nun, al-
though strangely enough the Lutheran lawyers
of the time would not recognize his marriage ;
and again, the Landgrave of Hesse found him
quite willing to grant a special dispensation
in favor of polygamy. But these are not
Catholic principles.

If St. Peter was infallible, why did he deny
the Saviour?

Infallibility is in nowise connected with the
personal errors, weakness, or sins of individual
Popes, but is limited only to ex cathedra utter-
ances intended for the whole Church. At any
rate, the objection falls to the ground, for at
the time of the denial St. Peter was not Pope,
for he had not yet received the gift of Pente-
cost, which was necessary for the fulness of
his powers.

Did not Pope Liberius subscribe to an Arian
Creed ? How could a heretic be infallible ? Did
he not condemn St. Athanasius as a heretic ?

Digitized by

The Popes in History.

309

It is by no means certain that Pope Liberius
subscribed any Arian Creed, for the documents
alleging this are of doubtful authenticity.
Granting that he did, there is no certainty
which one he signed. It by no means follows,
therefore, that he was a heretic, for the first and
third of the formulas could be understood in a
Catholic sense, and were faulty because they did
not expressly exclude Arianism, while Sozomen
(book iv. c. 15) tells us that I<iberius con-
demned the second, the evidently heretical one.
As to the alleged anathema against St. Atha-
nasius, Protestants grant that this letter is
spurious (Smith and Wace, ' ' Dictionary of
Christian Biography," Athanasius 1, p. 192).
The whole objection is not to the point, how-
ever, for all grant that if the Pope did sub-
scribe any creed, he did so, as St. Athanasius
tells us, under the fear of death. No act ex-
torted by violence can be an ex cathedra act ;
and again, there is no evidence of his giving
forth a decision on a point of faith with the
express intention of making, it binding upon
the Universal Church. {Dublin Review, Oct.,
1868, July, 1891 ; Irish EccL Record, April,
May, June, 1888 ; Amer. Cath. Quarterly, vol.
xix. p. 82, vol. viii., p. 529; Rivington,
" Dependence," chap, iv.)

How could Pope Honorius be infallible when

Digitized by

The Question Box.

he was condemned by the Sixth General Council
as a heretic ?

"Pope Honorius may be reproached with
having encouraged error indirectly by not pro*
ceeding against it with timely vigor; but it
cannot be said that he- defined error, which
would alone tell against the dogma. . . .
Ai Pope is not. infallible in proceedings such? as
those of HonoriuSj who contributed unintent-
ionally to the increase of heresy by not issu-
ing decisions against it. His letters (to Ser-
gius) contain no decision, neither do they con-
tain any false doctrine.. No decision of his
was or could be condemned as false; otherwise
the Sixth Council would have contradicted it-
self, for it recognized that the Holy See had at
all times the privilege of teaching truth. He
was condemned for having rendered himself
morally responsible for the spread of heresy by
having neglected to publish, decisions against
it; and in this sense alone was his condfemv
nation confirmed by I^eo IL" (Hergenrother,
"Church and State," vol. i. p. 83).

Even granted that the Council condemned
him, his utterances were not ex cathedra^ for in
no less than four passages he declares that he
has no intention of defining doctrine, and far
from imposing his teaching on the Universal
Church, it was not even heard of until after his
death. Writes Cardinal Newman: "The: con-

Digitized by

Tlie Popes in History.

3"

demnation of Honorius by the CounciL in no
sense compromises the. doctrine of Papal in-
fallibility. At the most, it -only decides that
Honorius in his own person, was a heretic,
which is inconsistent with no. Catholic doc-
trine. " (" Difficulties of Anglicans," voL.ii.p.
317 ; Cardinal Manning, " Petri Privilegium,,,
part Hi. appendix vi.; Hettinger, "Supremacy
of the Apostolic See," ch. xvii. pp. 83-97;
Ryder, " Catholic Controversy 99 ; Hergenroth-
er, " Anti-Janus," p. 82; Pennachi, 14 De Ho-
norii Causa in Cone. VI.," Rome, 1870 ; Fran-
zelin, " De Verbo Incarnato," thesis xl.; Dub-
lin Review, July, 1868, Jan., 1869, April, 1870,
July, 1872.)

Is it reasonable to expect that God would' choose
wicked men like Alexander VI. tobe the mouth-
piece of His revelation ?

It is reasonable to expect that the Vicars
of Christ, taken as a body, would be holy men,
and in point of fact we find this is the case.
Proportionately there have been fewer bad
Popes than bad Apostles. Still the individual
wickedness of a Pope would by no means inter-
fere with his power of teaching infallibly, which
rests not on man but on the promise of God.
Did not Balaam (Num. xxii. 38) and Caiphas
(John xi. 49, 51), although wicked men, pro-
phesy infallibly? Did not our !Lord Himself

Digitized by

312 The Question Box.

tell the Jews of His time that the personal un-
worthiness of the teachers of Israel in no way
interfered with their official teaching? (Matt,
xxiii. 2, 3). Would the decision of a judge of
the Supreme Court of the United States re-
garding some clause of the Constitution be
void because of his immoral private life ?

How could an infallible Pope order Joan of Arc
to be burnt as a witch, while to-day another
Pope is trying to make her a saint ?

Joan of Arc was never condemned as a witch
by any Pope. The court that condemned her
was composed of French and English ecclesias-
tics who were enemies of France, and enemies
of the Pope, as was evident two years later at
the Council of Basle. Joan died a good Catho-
lic, receiving Holy Communion the very morn-
ing of her execution. Time and time again
during her mock trial had she appealed "to
our Holy Father the Pope," but her unjust
judge, the unscrupulous Bishop of Beauvais,
refused her appeal. Within twenty-five years
after her death, Pope Calixtus III. declared
the nullity of the trial and the innocence of
Joan, and ordered a trial of rehabilitation,
which on July 7, 1456, declared her innocent
of all the charges against her.

How in the face of history can you hold the *
dogma of Papal infallibility when every one

Digitized by

The Popes in History.

313

knows that two Popes, Paul V. and Urban VIII.,
officially declared the Copernican system held by
the great astronomer Galileo to be false, heretical,
and contrary to the Word of God ?

Does not his cruel treatment and the mistakes
of two infallible Popes show your infallible
Church's hatred of true science and progress?
For every one to-day says that Galileo was right
— even Catholics.

Before answering the several questions in-
volved in this old shibboleth of controversy
let us give a cursory glance at the facts in the
case, as set forth in the records of the trial,
published for the first time in 1877.

In the beginning of the seventeenth century
the world of scientists and theologians, with
some few exceptions, believed most firmly in
the Ptolemaic system of astronomy, relying on
the authority -of Aristotle, the Scriptures, the
Fathers of the Church, theologians, and certain
scientific arguments.

Galileo, professor of mathematics at the
University of Padua (1599-1610), and an as-
tronomer of note, on a visit to Rome in 161 1
vigorously attacked the Ptolemaic system of
astronomy then in vogue, and declared the
Copernican system, put forth tentatively by
Copernicus in 1543, in his work "De Revo-
lutionibus orbium ccelestium,,> as the only
theory in accord with both faith and science.

Digitized by

3H

The Question Box.

A letter of His to Padre Castelli, a Benedic-
tine, setting forth his views as already pub-
lished in two works (" Discourse on Floating
Bodies," 1612 ; " The Solar Spots," 1613), was
sent to the Congregation of the Index by the
Dominican Father Lorini, Feb. 15, 1615.

After a private discussion by a special com-
mittee, the two following propositions of Gali-
leo were condemned:

1st. That the sun is the centre of the world
and altogether immovable.

2d. The earth is not the centre of the world,
nor immovable, but revolves of itself in diurnal
motion.

The first proposition was declared "stupid
and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretir
cal, inasmuch as it expressly contradicted the
words of Holy Scripture in many passages,
according to the sense of the text and the com-
mon interpretation and opinion of the holy
fathers and learned theologians."

The second " received the same censure in
philosophy, and theologically was declared td
be at least erroneous in faith."

Pope Paul V. then ordered Cardinal Bellar-
min to summon Galileo before him, and ask
him, under threat of imprisonment, utterly to
renounce his theory and to cease teaching or
defending it in any form. This Galileo con-
sented to do.

Digitized by

The Popes in History, 315

The decree of the Roman Inquisition published
March 5, 16 16, declared the doctrine of Coper-
nicus false and absolutely contrary to the Scrip-
tures, removed from circulation the book of
Copernicus, that of Astunica and others of the
same school, until corrected. The text of this
decree continued in all the editions of the In-
dex— in full or in abstract — until suppressed
by Benedict XIV. in 1757.

In 1622 Galileo wrote his " Saggiatore " — a
thinly- veiled defence of the Copernican system —
which he dedicated to Pope Urban VIII., and
in 1632 his famous "Dialogo," which was an
evident defiance of the old decree of the In-
quisition.

The master of the Sacred Palace at Rome
wrote the printers of Florence to suppress this
work, and Galileo was cited before the In-
quisition for trial. After considerable delay
(Oct. 1, 1632-Feb. 13, 1633) Galileo arrived in
Rome, and resided with Nicolini, the ambassa-
dor of the Duke of Tuscany. In the course of
his trial, given out in the interests of the
truth by the Holy See in 1877, and published
by H. de TEpinois, " Les pieces du procfes de
Galilee' ' (Paris, 1877), Von Gebler, " Les
actes du proems de Galilee" (Stuttgart, 1877),
and others, Galileo was asked : 1st, Did his
book (" Dialogo ") teach the Copernican the-
ory condemned in 1616? and 2d, Did he hold

I Digitized by

316 The Question Box.

that theory? The first question, after some
hesitancy, was answered in the affirmative by
Galileo ; with regard to the second, he declared
that prior to 1616 he held that both theories
were probably true, and that after 16 16 he
held merely the Ptolemaic.

Soon after, at the Dominican Convent, his
condemnation was read by seven cardinals, and
Galileo in their presence made abjuration on
the Gospels of all false doctrine in general and
of the Copernican system in particular.

The favorite piece of old controversy dat-
ing from 1 76 1 (" E pure si muove—but it does
move ")> as well as the use of torture, is given
the lie direct by the published records of the
trial. Galileo's prison, moreover, was not the
dark, terrible dungeon evolved out of the con-
troversial imagination, but successively the pal-
ace of his friend, the Grand Duke of Tuscany,
at Rome ; the palace of his friend, Archbishop
Piccolomini, at Siena, and his own villa of
Arcetri, near Florence.

The condemnation of Galileo has been
brought forward ever since the Reformation as
disproving the dogma of Papal infallibility;
but illogically and wrongly, as even fair-minded
Protestants admit.

Thus, the astronomer Proctor (* ' Knowledge/ 1
vol. ix. p. 274) writes : " The Catholic doctrine
on the subject [of Papal infallibility] is perfect-

Digitized by

The Popes in History. 317

ly definite ; and it is absolutely certain that the
decision in regard to Galileo's teaching, shown
now to have been unsound, does not in the
slightest degree affect the doctrine of infallibil-
ity, either of the Pope or of the Church. . . .
The decision was neither ex cathedra nor ad-
dressed to the whole Church ; in not one single
point does the case illustrate this doctrine of
Papal infallibility as defined by the Vatican
Council."

Another Protestant, Karl Von Gebler, in his
work " Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia,"
writes to the same effect : " We grant that the
two congregations of the Index and the Inqui-
sition, with the two .Popes who sanctioned and
promulgated their decrees, were in error; but
no one ever held that the decisions of the
Roman congregations were in themselves infalli-
ble, even when approved by the Pope, unless
specially set forth by the Pope with all the con-
ditions required for an ex cathedra definition."

This is the teaching of Catholic theologians
of the seventeenth as well as of the twentieth
century.

Thus, Caramuel in his " Theologia Funda-
mentalis," published in Lyons, 1676, declared
that if the Copernican system should one day
prove true, "it could never be said that the
Church had been in error, as the doctrine of the
double motion of the earth had never been con-

Digitized by

3 18 The Question Box.

demned by an oecumenical council, nor by the
Pope speaking ex cathedra^ but only by the tri-
bunal of cardinals' ' (cited by J. Bagshawe,
"The Church,' 9 p. 134).

So Tanquery in his "Synopsis Theologiae
Dogmaticae," published in New York, 1897,
writes : 4 4 We readily grant that these congrega-
tions were wrong in condemning Galileo, . . .
and that the two Popes (Paul V. and Urban
VIII.) erred, not only as private persons, but as
the heads of these congregations, whose decrees
were valueless unless approved by the Pope.
But the decisions of the congregations, even
when approved by the Supreme Pontiff, are not
infallible, unless the Pope makes them his own,
and promulgates them in his own name, with
all the conditions required for an ex cathedta
definition. This was not done in the present
case, . . . nor can any theologian of re-
pute be brought forward who declared these
decrees to be infallible definitions' 9 (vol. i. p.
477)-

The very insistence on the one case of Gali-
leo out of 1900 years of history proves to all
fair-minded non-Catholics the falsity of the ac-
cusation that the Church is opposed to science.
For Galileo was honored by the greatest
churchmen and scholars of his day for his
scientific knowledge and discoveries. It was
his bitter attacks on the defenders of the com-

Digitized by

The Popes in History.

319

monly received Ptolemaic system, and his ap-
peal to the Scriptures as proof, that brought
about his condemnation. We must put our-
selves in the stand-point of the sixteenth, and
not of the twentieth century, remembering that
the scientific arguments adduced by Galileo by
no means proved the Copernican system. Many
facts that we possess to-day — v.g., the phe-
nomena of aberration, the depression ot the
earth at the poles, the variations of the pendu-
lum according to latitude, etc. — were utterly
unknown to Galileo ;and his contemporaries.

If Galileo's condemnation proves the Church's
hostility to science, how is it that two centuries
before th^t Nicholas Cusa, the first defender of
the Copernican theory, %was made Cardinal by
Pope Nicholas V., and Bishop of Brixen, while
Copernicus himself was made professor in the
Pope's university at Rome in 1500, and given a
life pension by Paul III. ? Moreover the de-
crees against Galileo did not hinder in the
least scientific advance in Italy ; but at Rome,
Florence, and Bologna we find Catholic names
by the score illustrious in the history of scien-
tific discovery. (Jaugey, " Diction. d'Apolog6-
tique," Galil6e; H. de PEpinois, "L,es pieces
du proces de Galilee," Paris, 1877, " La Ques-
tion de Galilee," Paris, 1878; Von Gebler,
"Les actes du proc&s de Galilee," Stuttgart,
1877; Berti, " L,e proc&s de Galilee," Rome,

Digitized by

320

The Question Box.

1878 ; Schanz, " Galileo Galilei et son procfes,"
Wurzburg, 1878; Bouquard, " Galilee son pro-
ems, sa condemnation, et les Cong. Rom.,"
Paris, 1886; Dublin Review, July, 1838, Octo-
ber, 1865, April and July, 1871 ; Catholic World,
January, 1869, October, 1887.)

How could one Pope (Clement XIV., 1773)
suppress the Jesuits, and another (Pius VII.,
1814) restore them, and yet both be infallible in
their opposite decrees?

Infallibility does not belong to the Pope as
supreme legislator or judge in matters of dis-
cipline, but only as supreme teacher in defin-
ing doctrine to beheld by the Universal Church,
as explained above. He is by no means in-
fallible, therefore, either in suppressing a re-
ligious order or in restoring it, and so Catho-
lics can answer that the Pope may in such cases
have erred. (Alzog, vol. iii. 562-572, 683;
American Cath. Quarterly, 1888, p. 696.)

Does not your dogma of infallibility give the
Pope to-day the power he so arbitrarily exercised
in the Middle Ages of deposing sovereigns, and
absolving peoples from their allegiance ?

The deposing power has nothing whatsoever
to do with the dogma of infallibility. Pius
IX. in a letter to the Roman Academy (July
20, 1 871) fully answers this objection. "This

Digitized by

The Popes in History. 321

right/ ' he says, "has without doubt been
exercised by the Supreme Pontiffs from time
to time in crucial circumstances; but it has
nothing to do with Papal infallibility, neither
does it flow therefrom, but from the authority
of the Pope. Moreover, the exercise of this
right in those ages of faith which regarded the
Pope as the Supreme Judge of Christendom,
and recognized the great advantages of his
tribunal in the great contests of peoples and
of sovereigns, was freely extended by public
jurisprudence and the common consent of na-
tions to the most important interests of states
and of their rulers. But altogether different
t Are the conditions of the present time ; and
malice alone can confound things so diverse,
viz., the infallible judgment concerning the
truths of divine revelation with the right which
the Popes exercised in virtue of their author-
ity when the common good demanded it."

We must be careful not to view the Middle
Ages with the eyes of the twentieth century.
Then Christendom was a society of Catholic
nations, acknowledging one only faith under
the supremacy of the Pope, the Vicar of Christ.
Everywhere in the public jurisprudence of the
time his right to depose sovereigns was ac-
knowledged without question. He was made
supreme arbiter in the Ages of Faith, to safe-
guard the people against the tyranny of their

Digitized by

322

The Question Box.

rulers. To say that the Popes exercised this
power arbitrarily is to give the lie to history.
On the contrary, the Popes only acted in virtue
of the public law, and in cases where a ruler
had violated his coronation oath, or set at
naught all laws, both human and divine.

The action of the Popes may be justly com-
pared to the impeachment of the President of
the United States as laid down in the Consti-
tution. Again, the same principle is voiced in
the Declaration of Independence: " We, there-
fore, the representatives of the United States
of America, in general council assembled,
. . . do solemnly publish and declare that
these united colonies, . . . are absolved
front all allegiance to the British Crown, and
that all political connection between them and
the State of Great Britain is, and ought to
be, totally dissolved.' 9

Is it true that according to Catholic teaching
the State ought to be subject to the Church ?

How can Catholics give this country an un-
divided allegiance when they are subject to a
foreign power?

If the law of the Pope should conflict with the
laws of the United States, which would you
obey?

The Catholic doctrine on the relations of
Church and State are thus set forth in Leo

Digitized by

The Popes in History. 323

XIII.'s Encyclical on the "Christian Consti-
tution of States* ' :

* ' The Almighty, therefore, has appointed
the charge of the human race between two
powers — the ecclesiastical and the civil; the
one being set over divine, the other over
human things. Each in its kind is supreme;
each has fixed limits within which it is con-
tained, which are defined by the nature and
the special object of the province of each,
so that there is, we may say, an orbit traced out
within which the action of each is brought into
play by its own native right; but inasmuch
as each of these two powers has authority
over the same subjects, and as it might come to
pass that one and the same thing — related dif-
ferently, but still remain one and the same
thing — might belong to the jurisdiction and
determination of both, therefore God, who fore-
sees all things and who is the Author of these
two powers, has marked out the course of each
in right correlation of the other. For the
powers that are, are ordained of God (Rome
xiii. 1)." And further on he marks clearly the
connection : " One of the two has for its proxi-
mate and chief object the well-being of this
mortal life ; the other, the everlasting joys of
heaven. Whatever, therefore, in things human
is of a sacred character, whatever belongs
either of its own nature v0r by reason of the

Digitized by

324

The Question Box.

end to which it is referred, to the salvation
of souls, or to the worship of God; is subject
to the power and judgment of the Church.
Whatever is to be ranged under the civil and
political order is rightly subject to the civil
authority. Jesus Christ has Himself given
command that what is Caesar's is to be render-
ed to Caesar, and what belongs to God is to be
rendered to God" (Luke xx. 25).

The Catholic Church teaches that no man's
allegiance to the State is absolute and un-
divided, but must always be limited by con-
science and the law of God.

Patriotism — love for country in all things
not opposed to the law of God — is with the
Catholic not a mere caprice or emotional feel-
ing, but a positive religious duty, commanded
by Jesus Christ and His Apostles (Luke xx.
25; Rome xiii. 1-4; I. Pet. ii. 13-15).

If the laws of the State go counter to Chris-
tianity, then of course the Catholic says with
St. Peter, even though it mean death: "We
ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts
v. 29) . Thus, frequently in the course of his-
tory loyalty to Christ meant disobedience to
a State that taught anti-Christian principles,
or exacted obedience to an iniquitous law, as
the sacrifice to the gods of pagan Rome in the
early days of the Church, the attempt in Eng-
land in penal days to enforce attendance at

Digitized by

The Popes in History.

325

Protestant worship and to exact the denial of
the Pope's supremacy in things spiritual, or the
permission of divorce contrary to the Scrip-
tures (Mark x. 2-12).

The Pope, as the universal Pontiff of the
Christian Church, does not claim any right to
interfere in purely temporal affairs, so that the
A.P.A.'s denial of the loyalty of Catholics to
their country because in the things of God
they knew and believed that the Roman Pon-
tiff was their head in spirituals, arose from ig-
norance of the very first principles of Catho-
licism.

For suppose — to [take an impossible case —
the Pope had commanded all the Catholic sol-
diers and sailors in the American army and
navy not to fight for their country against Spain
in the late Spanish- American War, they would
on Catholic principles be perfectly justified in
refusing compliance. When in the Middle
Ages the Popes were temporal princes, we find
Catholic princes and peoples making no scruple
in opposing them on merely political lines,
while fully acknowledging their supremacy in
spirituals.

At the time of the Spanish Armada there
was not the slightest question of the loyalty
of English Catholics, even though they were
being persecuted to the death.

As a matter of fact, the Catholics of these

Digitized by

326

The Question Box.

United States have ever been ready to rally by
the thousands to their country's defence in time
of danger, from the American Revolution down
to the late war with Spain. It is good to re-
call the address of George Washington thank-
ing the Catholics of his day for their loyalty :
4 ' 1 hope ever to see America among the fore-
most nations in examples of justice and liberal-
ity. And I presume that your fellow- citizens
will not forget the patriotic part which you
took in the accomplishment of their Revolution
and the establishment of their government, or
the important assistance they received from a
nation in which the Roman Catholic faith is
professed" (Sparks's Washington, vol. xii.;
Cardinal Newman's and Manning's answer to
Gladstone's " Vatican Decrees " ; Hergenroth-
er, " Church and State" ; Archbishop Keane,
"Xoyalty to Rome and Country"; American
Cath. Quarterly y 1890, p. 509.

THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.

Does not St. Paul teach: " Therefore we con-
clude that a man is justified by faith without
the deeds of the law"? (Rom. iii. 28).

"St. Paul here contends," writes Moehler,
" against the Jews of his own time, who obsti-
nately defended the eternal duration of the
Mosaic law, and asserted that, not needing a

Digitized by

The Doctrine of Justification, 327

Redeemer from sin, they became righteous and
acceptable before God by that law alone. In
opposition to this opinion, St. Paul lays down
the maxim, that it is not by the works ^deeds)
of the law, i.e., not by a life regulated by the
Mosaic precepts, man is enabled to obtain the
favor of Heaven ; but only through faith in
Christ, which has been imparted to us by God
for wisdom, for sanctification, for righteousness,
and for redemption. Unbelief in the Redeemer,
and confidence in the fulfilment of the law per-
formed, through natural power alone, on the
one hand, and faith in the Redeemer and the
justice to be conferred by God on the other
(Rom. i. 17, x. 3; Phil. iii. 9) — these, and not
faith in the Redeemer, and the good works
emanating from its power, constitute the two
points of opposition contemplated by the Apos-
tle" (" Symbolism,' ' ch. iii. sec. xxii. p.
165).

The Scriptures clearly show that man cannot
be saved by faith alone, but by that living, vital
faith that produces good works.

"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the com-
mandments,, (Matt. xix. 17).

" Seest thou that faith did co-operate wit*h
his works, and by works faith was made per-
fect? ... Do you see that by works a
man is justified, and not by faith only ? . . .
For even as the body without the spirit is dead,

Digitized by

328

The Question Box,

so also faith without works is dead" (James
ii. 22-26).

" If I should have all faith, so that I could
remove mountains, and have not charity, I am
nothing'* (I. Cor. xiii. 1, 2).

"Not every one who saith to me, 'Lord,
Lord/ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven,
but he that doth the will of my Father, who is
in heaven" (Matt. vii. 21).

When St. Paul declares, "Therefore being
justified by faith, we have peace with God
through our Lord Jesus Christ* ' (Rom. v. 1),
he plainly means, "For in Christ Jesus
neither circumcision availeth anything, nor
uncircumcision ; but faith that worketh by
charity " (Gal. v. 6).

The old Protestant doctrine which attributes
to faith alone the power of saving has not the
slightest warrant in Scripture. "Love must
already vivify faith, before the Catholic Church
will say that through it man is truly pleasing
to God. Faith in love, and love in faith, justi-
fy ; they form here .an inseparable unity. This
justifying faith is not merely negative, but
positive withal; not merely a confidence that,
for Christ's sake, the forgiveness of sins will be
obtained, but a sanctified feeling, in itself agree-
able to God. Charity is undoubtedly, accord-
ing to Catholic doctrine, a fruit of faith. But
faith justifies only when it has already brought

Digitized byLjOOQle

The Doctrine of Justification, 329

forth this fruit' ' (Moehler's ' ' Symbolism/ '
ch. iii. sec. xix. pp. 146-7;.^/. pp. 115-153).

What do you think of the doctrine of total
depravity ?

It was the doctrine of Luther and Calvin that
human nature, because of original sin, became
essentially corrupt, so that men could neither
think, speak, do, or love anything but evil.
"Sin is not an act or a phenomenon of our
nature, ' 1 taught Luther ; " it is our very nature,
and our whole being itself.' ' "All that you
can do begins in sin, remains in sin ; it may ap-
pear ever so good and pretty ; you can do noth-
ing but sin, act as you please."

And Calvin says: "There remains this in-
dubitable truth which no artifice can shake,
that the mind of man is so far alienated from
God's justice that he violently conceives, de-
sires, and strives after nothing that is not im-
pious, fallacious, filthy, impure. His heart is
so filled with poison, that it breathes forth
nothing but stench." (Cf. Presbyterian Con-
fession of Faith, 1827, Art. xi.; Anglican Arti-
cles, viii.; quoted by Hecker, "Aspirations of
Nature," ch. xix., p. 142, 145, 146, etc.)

The Catholic Church in the Council of Trent
condemned this dreadful doctrine of the Re-
formers, which made God the author of evil
(Sess. vi., De Just., can. 5-7). She declares-

Digitized by

330 The Question Box.

that man is made to the image and likeness of
God, essentially good, with reason to know the
truth and free will to choose the good,' and that
the fall left man's reason and free will essential-
ly uninjured. The supernatural always builds
upon the natural. If human nature were es-
sentially corrupt man would be incapable of the
supernatural (see "Aspirations of Nature,"
xxvi. xxvii.; Moehler's " Symbolism/' ch. ii.)

Of course Protestants of to-day, as a rule,
repudiate the teachings of Luther and Calvin
regarding total depravity, and the sinfulness of
good works. Indeed, thousands have by an
inevitable reaction from this fearful doctrine
come to deny altogether the fact of original sin,
the necessity of faith, or the existence of a
supernatural order. This is the Nemesis of
error.

What is the Catholic doctrine of merit ?

Do you teach that men merit heaven by their
good works ? How, then, is salvation absolutely
free ? "By grace are ye saved through faith ;
and that not of yourselves ; it is the gift of God.
Not of works, lest any man should boast " (Eph.
ii. 8, 9).

The Council of Trent thus sets forth the
Catholic teaching : " Eternal life is to be pro-
posed to those who do good unto the end and
hope in God, both as a grace mercifully prom-

Digitized by

The Doctrine of Justification. 331

ised to the children of God through Jesus
Christ, and as a reward to be faithfully ren-
dered to their good works and merits, in virtue
of the promise of God. . . .

"For since Christ Jesus Himself constantly
communicates His virtues to those who are
justified, as the head to the members, and as
the vine to the branches (John xv. 4) ; — which
virtue always precedes, accompanies, and fol-
lows their good wofks, and without which they
could be nowise agreeable to God and meri-
torious,— we must believe that nothing more is
wanting to the justified, nor is there any reason
why they should not be considered as having
fully satisfied the divine law, as far as the con-
dition of this life admits, by such works as are
done in God, and truly merited the attainment
of eternal life in due time, if they die in the
state of grace' ' (Trent, De Just., Sess. vi.
cap. xvi.)

Catholics believe that eternal life is indeed
a free gift of God's mercy and love, won for
us by Christ's death; but God having prom-
ised it as a reward to those who love and
serve Him, we can by performing good works
through God's grace really merit the glory
in heaven.

The Scriptures continually speak of God
giving us eternal blessedness as a reward due
to merit:

Digitized by

332

Tke Question Box,

"Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is
very great in heaven" (Matt. v. 12),

4 * There is no man that hath left home . . .
who shall not receive ... in the world to
come life everlasting " (Luke xviii. 29, 30).

" God, who shall render to every man ac-
cording to his works. To them indeed, who
according to patience in good work seek glory;
. . . eternal life" (Rom. ii. 6, 7).

"He that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit
shall reap life everlasting. And in doing good
let us not fail, for in due time we shall reap,
not failing' ' (Gal. vi. 8, 9).

" I have fought a good fight. I have finished
my course. I have kept the faith. As to the
rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice,
which the Lord, the just Judge, will render to
me in that day (II. Tim. iv. 7, 8; cf. Matt,
xxv. 34; I. Tim. vi. 18; Apoc. xiv. 12).

Protestants frequently believe that Catholics
ascribe the merit of their good works to them-
selves and not to Jesus Christ, the Saviour.
This is not the fact. Catholics believe that no
natural act can merit eternal salvation; that
we can do nothing for heaven without the
merits of Jesus Christ, the one Mediator, and
the grace of God won for us all by His
redemption. "Our sufficiency is from God"
(II. Cor. iii. 5). "Without Me you can do
nothing " (John xv. 5). Every good work we

Digitized by

The Doctrine of Justification. 333

do is the effect of the Holy Ghost, and our free
will co-operating with Him. " By the grace of
God I am what I am; and His grace in me
hath not been void, but I have labored more
abundantly than all they ; yet not I, but the
grace of God with me" (I. Cor. xv. 10).
" As ink is required for the pen," says St.
Thomas Aquinas, "so the grace of the Holy
Ghost is necessary to inscribe the virtues in
our souls.' 1

What do Catholics mean by " works of super-
erogation " ? I hold that no matter what a man
does, he still falls far short of his duty, accord-
ing to the word of Christ : " When ye shall have
done all those things which are commanded you,
say : We are unprofitable servants " (Luke xvii.
10).

Works of supererogation are those not posi-
tively commanded, but counselled by the law
of Christ. Such, for example, are the three
counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience,
freely embraced by those who wish more per-
fectly to follow the Master (Matt. xix. 12-
21; I. Cor. vii. 25). Thus, the early Chris-
tians were not obliged to sell their possessions
and hand over the proceeds to the Apostles
(Acts v. 4), but they did so out of love for
Jesus Christ, who declared voluntary poverty to
be a counsel of the perfect life (Matt. xix. 21).

Digitized by

334

The i Question Box.

"The consciousness of being in the posses-
sion of an all-sufficing, infinite power ever dis-
. closes the tenderer and nobler relations of man
to God, and to his fellow-creatures ; so that
the man sanctified in Christ, and filled with
His spirit, ever feels himself superior to the
law. It is the nature of heaven-born love —
which stands so far, so infinitely far, above the
claims of the mere law, never to be content
with its own doings, and ever to be more in-
genious in its devices; so that Christians of
this stamp not unfrequently appear to men of a
lower grade of perfection as enthusiasts, men
of heated fancy and distempered mind. It is
only in this way that remarkable doctrine can
be satisfactorily explained, which certainly,
like ^very other which hath for centuries ex-
isted in the world, and seriously engaged the
human mind, is sure to rest on some deep foun-
dation— the doctrine, namely, that there can
be works which are more than sufficient {opera
supererogationis) — a doctrine, the tenderness
and delicacy whereof eluded, indeed, the per-
ception of the Reformers ; for they could not
even once rise above the idea that man could
ever become free from immodesty, unjust
wrath, avarice, and the rest" (Moehler, " Sym-
bolism/ ' ch. iii. sec. xxiii. p. 168).

Catholics know full well that the love of
God essential for salvation is comprised in the

Digitized by

Prayer.

335

words of the Saviour: " If thou wilt enter
into life, keep the commandments " (Matt. xix.
17) ; that Christian humility demands of every
one the recognition of his sins against God
(I. John i. 8) ; that no good works of their
own can ever merit the grace of justification,
and the right to God's Kingdom, which come
through Christ's passion and death upon the
cross. But, on the other hand, the Scriptures
clearly teach, and Christian antiquity .is wit-
ness thereof, that there is an essential dis-
tinction between the commandments of God
and the evangelical counsels, and that many
saints by the following of poverty, chastity,
and obedience, and the practice of heroic vir-
tue, have obtained many graces and helps for
their weaker brethren of the Communion of
Saints. In this sense St. Paul could say:
"Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you,
and fill up those things that are wanting of
the sufferings of Christ in my flesh for His
body, which is the Church' ' (Col. i. 24).

PRAYER.

Is not prayer an asking God to change the laws
of nature He Himself established?

Is it not absurd to ask God to change His mind,
when He knows what is best for us ?

St. Thomas Aquinas thus answers this dif-

Digitized by

336

The Question Box.

ficulty (" Summa," 2a. 2ae. q. 83. a. 2) : "In
proclaiming the utility of prayer, we are not to
be understood as putting any restraint on hu-
man acts subject to Divine Providence, nor are
we supposing any change in the ordinances of
God. Divine Providence has determined in ad-
vance, not only the effects which are to be pro-
duced, but also their order and the causes
which are to produce them. Among these
causes, are included human acts. Man, there-
fore, must do something, not indeed to change
by his acts the arrangement of God, but to
concur in producing certain effects in accord-
ance with the divine dispensation. Just as it
is with regard to physical causes, so it is too
with regard to prayer. The aim of prayer is
not to alter the designs of God, but to ask that
we may obtain what God had determined to
grant us by our prayers/' (Card. Gibbons,
"Our Christian Heritage,' ' ch. ix.; American
Cath. Quarterly, 1896, p. 491.)

Does not prayer encourage laziness and make
people neglect* doing what they should do them-
selves ?

Not in the slightest. The intelligent Chris-
tian who prays earnestly for the cure of a
sick friend does not neglect to employ a good
physician also. The good priest who prays
hard for the conversion of sinners does not

Digitized by

Prayer.

337

neglect the personal visit and the word of ad-
vice, warning, encouragement, or threat. He
knows that God wishes us to use every natu-
ral means at our disposal, but he knows also
that God has given us the supernatural help of
prayer. And so every nation has prayed, even
though its religion or philosophy gave the lie
, thereto ; so deeply rooted in the human heart
is the belief in a supernatural help vouchsafed
man for the asking.

Our objector has in mind, undoubtedly, the
superstitious fanaticism of the Dowieties, for
example, who, contrary to Christian principles,
neglect the use of remedies in curing diseases ;
or perhaps the Christian Scientists, who speak
of prayer, although their denial of a personal
God makes the term a mockery.

Why tell God our needs when God knows them
beforehand ?

The object of prayer is not to inform God of
our necessities or of our inmost sentiments of
love, praise, sorrow, or thanksgiving, for He,
the Omniscient One, knows all the secrets of
our hearts.

The Christian prays, however, to fulfil a
duty written in the heart of man and insisted
on constantly by the Son of God. The ele-
mental principle of religion is the acknowledg-
ment of God as our Creator, I^ord, and Final

Digitized by

338 The Question Box.

Destiny, and our utter dependence upon him.
The revelation of Jesus Christ, unfolding to us
so many new proofs of that Creator's love,
makes this acknowledgment the more impera-
tive.

The Son of God teaches us how to praise,
bless, adore, thank, and crave pardon of God,
and promises us favors through the invocation
of His holy name: " If you ask the Father
anything in my name, he will give it to you "
(John xvi. 23).

Why do not Catholics pray as the heart dic-
tates, instead of always repeating a certain
number of set prayers?

Because our Lord taught us the beauty and
efficacy of special prayers in that most per-
fect of all prayers, the Our Father (Luke xi.
1-4). The Catholic Church, teaching in His
name and with His divine authority, has fol-
lowed His example in sanctioning many other
beautiful prayers, as the Hail Mary, the Creed,
the Confiteor, the prayers of the Mass, the An-
gelus, the Rosary, etc., in order that the mem-
bers of a universal society may have in the
unity of common prayer a common bond of de-
votion to God and His saints.

Our objector must not forget, however, that
besides vocal prayer, there exists in the Catho-
lic Church the higher forms of mental and con-

Digitized by

Prayer,

339

templative prayer, in which great saints, like
St. Paul, St. Teresa, St. Catharine, excelled.
We recommend to his careful study some of
our elementary books on Christian Perfection,
which will open a new field of vision into the
spiritual life of Catholics. (Cf. Baker's " Holy
Wisdom," Lallemant's "Spiritual Doctrine,"
Hilton's "Scale of Perfection/ ' St. Teresa's
Autobiography, & Kempis* "Following of
Christ," the wojrks of St. John of the Cross, etc.)

Is not a broken and a contrite heart a better
offering to God than a thousand repetitions of
prayer ?

Did not Jesus rebuke repetitions in prayer,
saying : " Use not vain repetitions as the heath-
ens do"? (Matt- vi. 7).

Our questioner must distinguish between two
kinds of repetition. There is in the house
near me as I write a parrot who repeats by the
hour, with all the different changes of inflection
and without the slightest spark of intelligence,
4 4 How do you do ? ' ' " Bad— bad— bad boy ! ' '
"Hello, Polly!" "Good-by," etc. So it is
possible some people pray parrot-like without
thinking of God at all. This manner of pray-
ing our Lord rebukes when He said: "This
people honoreth Me with their lips, but their
heart is far from Me " (Matt. xv. 8 ; Is. xxix.

13).

Digitized by

340

The Question Box,

But there is, on the other hand, the oft-re-
peated "I love youM of the mother speaking
to the babe at her breast, which loses none of
its force in the repeating, but rather intensi-
fies the love of that mother's heart by out-
ward expression. Such the repeated prayer to
God of the devout soul — be it a prayer of
praise, adoration, thanksgiving, petition, or
sorrow for sin.

A contrite heart is essential to forgiveness,
both for the Catholic who confesses his sins to
an apostolic priesthood, vested with divine au-
thority to pardon (John xx. 23), and the one,
who, unable to confess, is bound to make a
perfect act of love of God to obtain pardon.
The voicing of that sorrow in heart-felt words,
no matter how often repeated, is both rational
and scriptural.

Our Lord never rebuked in the slightest de-
gree repetitions of prayer. The text of old-
time controversy — Matt. vi. 7 — is mistranslated
in the Protestant version. The literal original
Greek is " speak not much," while the untrue
Protestant paraphrase, * ' Use not vain repeti-
tions/ ' is read into the text by designing men
who sought some scriptural basis for an attack
upon the Church. On the contrary, Chi*sv
Himself exhorts us to repetition in prayer in
the parable of the unjust judge (Luke xviii.
3-8) and the importunate friend (Luke xi.

Digitized by

Prayer.

341

5-8). In the Garden He repeats His prayer to
the Father three times: "And He prayed a
third time, saying the self-same words " (Matt,
xxvi. 39, 42, 44). In heaven the angels never
tire of repeating day and night " Holy, Holy,
Holy, Lord God Almighty" (Is. vi. 3 ; Apoc.
iv. 8). The repeated prayer of the blind man,
" Son of David, have mercy upon me " (Matt,
xx. 31 ; Mark x. 48 ; Luke xviii. 39), was an-
swered by the gift of sight (cf. Ps. cxxxv.)

What, then, does our Lord condemn ? It is
the much speaking, or the "long prayers/' of
the Pharisees (Matt, xxiii. 14 ; Mark xii. 40 ;
Luke xx. 46, 47), not because of their mere
length, but because of the motive of the Phari-
sees in praying : * ' For all their works they do
to be seen of men M (Matt, xxiii. 5).

The hypocritical Pharisees prayed j,ust as
the3r gave alms and fasted (Matt. vi. 1-8 ; Mark
xii. 38; Luke xxi. 1), to awaken public ad-
' miration. They prayed long, elaborately-com-
posed prayers just as the heathens did, of
whom St. Augustine wrote: "And truly all
much speaking comes from the Gentiles, who
give more attention to the elegant delivery
of their prayers than to the cleansing of their
souls."

Neither the heathens nor the Pharisees prayed
silly "vain repetitions,' ' as Protestants imagine,
for these would never have been such a source

Digitized by

342 The Question Box,

of pride. Their extempore prayer was rather
on the order of certain Protestant minis-
ters to-day whose public prayers are really
speeches for the congregation, affording an
opportunity for the display of their literary
ability. So a Unitarian convert, now a priest,
told me that the prayer of the Unitarian min-
ister in the church he attended in Boston
years ago used to be elaborately prepared, and
discussed afterwards by the people. "What
a beautiful prayer ! What a poor effort to-day !
etc." This kind of praying, when it is merely
of the lips and not from the heart, is what our
Lord condemns. "True prayer," says St.
Gregory, commenting on the text in [question
(Matt. vi. 7), "consists rather in the bitter
groans of repentance than in the resounding
periods of an oration " (J. F. Sheahan, " Vain
Repetitions/ ' Cathedral Library Association,
New York).

Why are not all our prayers answered, when
Christ said, *" If you ask the Father anything in
my name, He will give it to you " ? (John xvi.
23).

What did you pray for ? — temporal blessings ?
We have a right to ask God for health, suc-
cess, fortune, and the like, according to our
Lord's own words: "Give us this day our
daily bread" (Matt. vi. 11), but He often re-

Digitized by

PrUyer. 343

fuses what we ask, because He knows it would
keep us from His love here and His kingdom
hereafter. IfNa sick bed brought us close to
God, while health would make us forget Him ;
if failure humiliated us and forced us to turn
to God for comfort, while success would puff
us up with self-sufficiency ; if poverty made us
friends of the poor Christ, while riches would
render us full of avarice, lust, and irreligion,
then God, foreseeing all this, grants our peti-
tions for these temporal favors by not giving us
what we ask for. We in our ignorance, may
not understand the reason why; God knows
what is best for us all.

Did you pray for spiritual blessing^ for
others, viz., the conversion of a friend or
relative ? Your prayers were not unheeded,
for God undoubted^ poured forth His grace
in superabundant measure upon the soul you
loved. There may be no outward sign of the
efficacy of your prayer, but who knows the
secret workings of God? Undoubtedly man
has the power to resist God's grace unto the
end. He wants a free service and will compel
no man to serve Him. But constant prayer
has melted many a hard heart, as Christians
know full well.

Have you prayed for yourself, " Forgive us
our trespasses ; lead us not into temptation, but
deliver us from, evil," with humility, faith,

Digitized by

344

The Question Box.

love, and sorrow for sin? God never refuses
such prayers.

Most important, too, is the manner in whicn
you prayed. If, for instance, while your lips
framed some careless, mechanical prayer, your
heart was bent upon other things, could you
expect God to answer you?

You would not dare to speak thus to a
friend you loved dearly.

4 'This people honoreth me with their lips;
but their heart is far from me M (Matt. xv. 8).

Again, our Lord taught us to pray with
humility, realizing well our sins and unworthi-
ness, and our utter dependence upon Him.
Some people demand favors of God as a right,
and blaspheme His holy Name for not answer-
ing at once. "The prayer of him that hum-
bleth himself shall pierce the clouds " (Ecclus.
xxxv. 21 ; cf. the parable of the Pharisee and
the Publican, Luke xviii. 10-14).

Other conditions on which He insists are
faith, confidence, and perseverance, by which,
despite every difficulty, one continues to ask of
God every needful grace of body and soul ; con-
sider the woman of Chanaan (Matt. xv. 22-28),
the parable of the importunate friend (Lukexi.
5-8), the unjust judge (Luke xviii. 2-5; xi.9-13).

Why don't Catholics finish the Lord's Prayer ?
Why is our " Our Father " different from yours >

Digitized by

The Sacraments.

345

Catholics do finish the Lord's Prayer. They
repeat it as the Saviour taught it, without
any human additions. The words "for thine
is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory
for ever,0 in the King James version of Matt.
vL 13, are not found in the most ancient manu-
scripts of. the New Testament, and were re-
jected by St. Jerome in the fourth century
in his edition of the Vulgate, as they are re-
jected to-day by Protestant scholars ; v.g., the
Protestant revised version of 1881, the Greek
text of Westcott and Hort, etc. The words in
question are a marginal gloss interpolated by
some copyist, who while writing had in mind
those words of the Greek liturgy which are
probably borrowed from a passage in the Old
Testament.

In Luke xi. 2-4 the King James version
omits the above gloss.

THE SACRAMENTS.

What do you mean by a sacrament ?

A sacrament is a visible sign permanently
instituted by Jesus Christ to signify and confer
grace upon men. Three things are necessary
for a sacrament : 1st, the sensible sign, as in
Baptism the outward washing of the body
with the invocation of the Blessed Trinity ; 2d.

Digitized by

346 The Question Box.

the inward grace signified and conferred, as in
Baptism, the cleansing of original sin and
actual sin if it exists; and 3d, institution by
Jesus Christ.

The chief reason of the sacraments is the
will of Jesus Christ manifested in the gospels,
and infallibly witnessed to by His Church. It
is perfectly in accord with man's nature that
sensible things should be made by God the
stepping-stones to things supernatural. The
whole idea of the Incarnation is "a redemp-
tion of the internal through the external"
(George Tyrrell, S.J. , "External Religion,"
ch. i. B. Herder, 1900) , and the sacraments are
merely the application to the individual soul
of the fruits of the Incarnation. They are
the seven precious channels of the blood and
merits of the atonement, flowing from the cross
upon the hearts of sinful men to wash away
their sins, and give them the life of grace
which Christ died to gain. They give the
Church, a visible society, a visible bond of
union, and visible witness, especially baptism
and the Eucharist, to the oneness of her chil-
dren in the faith and love of Christ. Practi-
cally speaking, they have helped religion won-
derfully, for they give certain, concrete, and
ready helps to uproot sin from the hearts of
men, and to promote, as in the Blessed Sac-
rament, the highest love for and the closest

Digitized by

The Sacraments.

347

union with Jesus Christ. (Humphrey, "The
One Mediator " ; Wilhelm-Scannell, " A Man-
ual of Theology," vol. ii.; Hunter, "Outlines
of Theology/' vol. iii.)

Are not the sacraments mere signs or cere-
monies to excite sentiments of faith and love in
the heart ; to mark off the Christian from the un-
believer ?

No; the Council of Trent (Sess. vii.; can.
6-8) has defined that the sacraments are not
merely external signs of grace, but actually
confer of themselves (ex opere operate) the
grace which they signify. The proof from
Scripture is plain.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall
be saved* ' (Mark xvi. 16).

" Unless a man be born again of water and
the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the king-
dom of God" (John iii. 5; Eph. v. 25, 26).

" Do penance and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the re-
mission of your sins, and you shall receive the
gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts ii. 38).

" They laid their hands upon them, and they
received the Holy Ghost, and when Simon saw
that by the imposition of the hands of the
Apostles the Holy Ghost was given, etc."
(Actsviii. 17-18. Cf. Actsxxii. 16; II. Tim.
i. 6; Tit. iii. 5.)

Digitized by

348

The Question Box7

If the sacraments were mere signs, would
not the practice of infant baptism by the Church
from the beginning, or by Protestants general-
ly, be perfectly useless, as likewise the ancient
custom of giving Confirmation and Holy Eucha-
rist to children, as is still done in the East
to-day. (For the Fathers, Wilhelm-Scannell,
" A Manual of Catholic Theology," vol. ii. p.
363O

Does not the teaching of your Church regard-
ing the sacraments give to the mere perf ormaace
of material rites a certain magical power ?

Not at all, for we do not believe that the
sacraments act like magic to cleanse a soul
from sin independently of the interior dis-
position of the one receiving them.

The Catholic Church demands : 1st. That a
person be qualified to receive them; for in-
stance, an unbaptized person cannot receive the
sacrament of penance, or one in good health
cannot be given Extreme Unction. 2. That a
person possess the necessary dispositions; for
example, a sinner who is not sorry for griev-
ous sin from supernatural motives, or who re-
fuses to promise not to offend God in future,
cannot be pardoned in the Sacrament of Pen-
ance, and is guilty of the still greater sin
of sacrilege by accepting absolution in that
state of soul.

Digitized by

The Sacraments.

349

All the conditions being present, however, the
sacraments do not merely signify the grace
of God, but they effect the grace they signify,
being channels of the grace of God, won for
us by Christ's death upon the fcross.

If, as your Church teaches/ the efficacy of a
sacrament depends on the intention of the minis-
ter, how can any one ever be certain of having
received a sacrament?

We have a strong moral certainty which is
practically absolute, for only an insane per-
son would perform an action without the in-
tention of performing it. And if perchance,
through the malice or neglect of an indivi-
dual, one were to be deprived of the benefit
of a sacrament, God could give the grace in-
.dependently thereof. (Rev. Sydney Smith,
S.J., " Doctrine of Intention/' Catholic Truth
Society publications.)

Can any one administer the sacraments in
your Church?

No ; the Catholic Church believes, with St.
Paul, in a ministry ordained by Christ for
that purpose, and therefore limits the admin-
istration of the sacraments to those in holy
orders, with the exception of baptism in cases
of necessity, it being necessary for salvation —
* ' So let a man think of us as the ministers of

Digitized by

35o

The Question Box.

Christ, and the dispensers ot the mysteries of
God M (I. Cor. iv. i) — and that of matrimony,
in which the parties themselves are the min-
isters of the sacrament, while none the less
obligated to be married in the presence of
their pastor.

Can a sinful man, or one who denies the Chris-
tian faith, be the minister of a valid sacrament?

Yes; for the minister acting merely as an
instrument, the sacramental action derives its
power and efficacy from the principal cause,
God. So we read that Pope St. Stephen (a.d.
255-7) decided against St. Cyprian that the
baptism conferred by heretics was valid, and
that rebaptism was unlawful. Again, in the
fifth century St. Augustine wrote against the
Donatists, who declared that sinners could not
validly baptize : * * The sacrament of baptism
is not dependent on the merit of those who ad-
minister it, but on Him of whom it is said,
It is He who baptizes " (lib. iii. c. 4, De Bap-
tismo; cf. Trent., Sess. vii. can. 12).

Two things are required in the minister of
the sacrament : attention, for he must know
what he is doing, and "the intention of doing
what the Church does 99 (Trent., Sess. vii. can.
11). Thus, infidel and Jewish physicians in
the hospitals of New York, who do not believe
in the Catholic Church, know what a sacra-

Digitized by

The Sacraments.

351

ment is, and believe that it is something sacred,
have in cases of necessity validly baptized
dying children, because they out of courtesy
and respect to the wishes of Catholic priests
have had the intention of performing an act
held sacred by the Catholic Church.

How many sacraments are there ? We Prot-
estants believe but two, Baptism and the Lord's
Supper ?

The Catholic Church (Trent., Sess. vii. can.
1) defines that there are seven sacraments of
the New Law, neither more nor less, while
the doctrine of Protestants on this point is set
forth in the XXV. Article of the Church of
England : " There are two sacraments ordained
of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, t. e.t Bap-
tism an<i the Supper of the Lord. Those five
commonly called sacraments, i. e.y Confirmation,
Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and the Extreme
Unction, are not to be counted for sacraments
of the Gospel/ 9 etc.

Before the Reformation it was universally
maintained, by both East and West, that there
were seven sacraments. Peter Lombard (lib.
iv. dist. 2, Sentent.) in the twelfth century
mentions them all, and the other Scholastics
never question the fact. The Greeks, who
discussed every possible point of variance with
the Latins at the Council of Lyons (a.d. 1274)

Digitized by

352

The Question Box,

and of Florence (a.d. 1439) never doubted on this
point. Indeed, the Patriarch of Constantinople,
Jeremias (a.d. 1574-1581), when the German
reformers sought to obtain recognition in the
East, answered their appeal by expressly re-
pudiating their new teaching, among which
he mentions their doctrine of only two sac-
raments. That the Fathers of the Church
never mention expressly the number need not
surprise us, when we reflect that they never
attempted to write systematic theologies. From
an historical point of view, the agreement of
the East and West on this matter is a sufficient
proof that their doctrine was held for at least
a thousand years before the Council of Trent ;
for what both teach surely dates from the
beginning of the controversies between them.
A belief as old as this is, on the argument
of prescription, apostolic teaching. "Is it
likely that so many and so great churches
should have gone astray into one Faith?
Never is there one result among many chances.
The error of the churches would have taken
different directions. Whatever is found to be
one and the same among many persons is
not an error but a tradition* 9 (Tertullian, De
Prsescr., c. 28).

Did not your Church originate the seven sacra-
ments ?

Digitized by

The Sacraments.

353

By no means, for we believe that God alone
is the author of grace, and only by His special
appointment could material rites be made the
channels of His grace to men. The Council
of Trent teaches (Sess. vii. can. i, De Sac.)
that all the sacraments of the New Law were
instituted by Christ. We do not hold, how-
ever, that the Saviour prescribed every detail
of the ceremonies, words, and actions to be
used in each sacrament, for as a matter of fact
the custom of the Church on these points has
varied at different times and in different places.

Is there any difference between Christian bap-
tism and the baptism of John?

Yes; the difference defined by the Council
of Trent (Sess. vii., De Bap., can. i) was set
forth expressly by John himself (Matt. iii.
n) : "I indeed baptize you in water unto
penance, but He that shall come after me is
mightier than I. . . . He shall baptize
you in the Holy Ghost and fire." The cere-
mony performed by John was not a sacrament
at all, but aroused feejings of sorrow, which
prepared the hearts of his hearers for the true
sacrament of Christ, as we learn from Acts
xix. 3-5.

Why do you not call the washing of the feet a
sacrament ? (John xiii. 4-10).

Digitized by

354

The Question Box.

If we were to judge by the Bible only, we
might fall into this error with the modern
Dunkards, but the Catholic Christian has a
divine, infallible interpreter of Scripture, the
Church, which declares that there are but
seven sacraments (Trent., Sess. vii. can. i).
The words of our Saviour are to be considered
a counsel, not a commandment ; a ceremony of
devotion, and not a sacrament, in this case.

Why do you hold that Baptism, Confirmation,
and Holy Orders cannot be repeated ?

Because they impress 1 1 a certain spiritual
and indelible sign," as we learn from the defi-
nition of the Council of Trent (Sess. vii., De
Sacr., can. 9), which voices the constant tradi-
tion of the Church, following the Scriptures
(II. Cor. i. 2i, 22; Eph. i. 13; iv. 30).

What is original sin ? Is it not unjust to hold
us guilty for Adam's sin ?

"Original sin is distinguished from actual
or personal sin in this : that actual or personal
sin is the sin which we personally with our own
free will commit, whilst original sin is that
which our human nature committed with the
will of Adam, in whom all our human nature
was included, and with whom our human
nature is united as a branch to a root, as a
child to a parent, as men who partake with

Digitized by

The Sacraments 355

Adam the same nature which we have derived
from him, and as members of the same human
family of which Adam was the head " (Faa
di Bruno, "Catholic Belief," p. 28).

Our first parents were created in the grace
and friendship of God, and endowed with
great gifts of soul and body ; namely, immor-
tality, immense knowledge, perfect dominion
over the passions, freedom from sickness, pain
and labor, on condition of their not eating
the fruit of the forbidden tree in the Garden
of Eden. They disobeyed this easy command-
ment, and thus forfeited for themselves and
their descendants sanctifying grace, all their
supernatural gifts, and wounded and weakened
even their natural powers.

" The supernatural end or destiny of man
still held good. But he lost that original gift,
the exercise of which was to enable him to at-
tain it. He became as the eagle whose home
and nest is on a peak of the Andes, and
whom the trapper snares and maims, until
his mighty pinions will carry him no more.
. . . Henceforth man could do no work cap-
able of meriting the life to come. Henceforth
the life to come was out of his reach. . . .
The child of God became a child of wrath.
. . . Fallen man became the slave of the
devil, to be tempted in life, to be punished
after death. It was from guch a state as^his

Digitized by

356 The Question Box.

that man had to be saved " (Bishop Hedley,
"Our Divine Saviour," Sermon iii.)

The doctrine of original sin is taught by St.
Paul : " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered
into this world, and by sin death, and so death
passed upon all men in whom all have sinned "
(Rom. v. 12).

It would indeed have been unjust had God
imputed to us the personal sin of another, or
deprived us of something due to human nature.
But "it is not the sin of Adam inasmuch as
that was personal which God imputes, but
the necessary effect of his sin — that is, the
deprivation, the rejection, as it were, of origi-
nal justice, which Adam wilfully incurred as
head of the whole human race, and which
therefore we also, as united to Adam, have
incurred. In this no vestige of injustice ap-
pears. Men do not thereby lose anything
which their nature requires" ("Catholic Be-
lief," p. 340). Sanctifying grace is God's free
gift, which He can give or take away on con-
ditions laid down by Himself alone. And
though we are all to-day, through Adam's sin,
born " children of wrath " (Eph. ii. 3), God in
His infinite love gives every one ample oppor-
tunity of regaining the grace His only Son
died on the cross to merit.

Does your Church hold that Baptism is abso-

Digitized by Google

The Sacraments.

357

lutely necessary for salvation? How can a
merciful and just God allow little infants, who
through no fault of theirs die unbaptized, to
suffer for ever in hell fire ?

The Catholic Church has defined (Trent.,
Sess. vii., De Bapt., can. 5) that baptism is
necessary for salvation. The words of Christ
are plain : " Unless a man (in the Greek iis,
any one) be born again of water and the
Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom
of God M (John iii. 5). He commands uni-
versal baptism (Matt, xxviii. 19), declaring:
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved, but he that believeth not shall be con-
demned1' (damned, in Protestant version;
Mark xvi. 16).

This necessity follows from the fact that all
men are born " children of wrath " (Eph. ii. 3) ;
that is, in original sin (Rom. v. 12), and need
therefore the regeneration or new birth of which
the Saviour speaks. This doctrine of the
Church was clearly taught in the fourth cen-
tury by the condemnation of the Pelagians,
who denied the necessity of baptism for chil-
dren.

This necessity is not strictly absolute, as we
learn from Trent., Sess. vi., De Justif., can. 4,
which declared that " since the promulgation
of the Gospel there is no translation from the
State of Old Adam to the State of Grace,

Digitized by

35»

The Question Box.

. . . without the laver of regeneration, or
the desire of it" (John iii. 5; Eph. v. 25, 26).

In cases of necessity, therefore, this baptism
of desire will suffice foi salvation ; and the per-
fect love of God (" He that loveth Me shall be
loved of My Father,* ' John xiv. 21), and sor-
row for sin, surely include the desire to fulfil
every command of Christ. Such is the teach-
ing of St. Augustine (De Bapt., iv. 22), and
St. Ambrose in a sermon preached at Milan
on the death of the catechumen Valentinian II.

Martyrdom also, or baptism of blood, has
always been considered equivalent to baptism
of water, according to the words of Christ:
" Every one, therefore, that shall confess Me
before men, I will also confess him before My
Father who is in heaven 99 (Matt. x. 32). Even
unbaptized children, murdered out of hatred
for Jesus Christ, are considered saints by the
Church (see Feast of the Holy Innocents, Dec.
28). In the case of adults mart5rr&om must
be fully embraced, and from supernatural
motives alone. " He that shall lose his life for
Me, shall find it" (Matt. x. 39).

With regard to children who die unbaptized,
Catholics generally hold, against Calvin (Inst.,
lib. iii. ch. 23, sec. 7), that they do not suffer
any punishment. The most common teaching
on the matter is that they are indeed excluded
from heaven and the supernatural vision of

Digitized by

The Sacraments.

359

God, because they have not fulfilled the con-
dition laid down by Christ (John iii. 5) . This
privation, however, is not unjust on God's
part, for the glory of heaven is a free super-
natural gift, not due to human nature ; nor
does it imply suffering, for the little ones most
likely do not even know there is such a thing
as the Beatific Vision, and so know God and
rejoice in Him, as St. Thomas teaches, <(by a
natural knowledge and love." We might com-
pare them to adopted children on this earth
who, not knowing the fact of their real mother's
death, have never felt the pain of that priva-
tion.

Is not Baptism a mere external ceremony of
initiation into the body of the Christian fellow-
ship?

No ; this is a new doctrine of the Reforma-
tion, following logically from the doctrine of
justification by faith alone. The Catholic
Church teaches that " Baptism is a sacrament
which cleanses us from original sin, makes
us Christians, children of God, and heirs of
heaven" (Catechism of Third Plenary Coun-
cil, lesson xii.) It is not a mere outward sign,
but a sign (washing of the body with the in-
vocation of the Blessed Trinity) that of itself
signifies and confers grace, cleansing from
original sin as well as actual sin previously

Digitized by

360 The Question Box.

committed, and imprinting on the soul a spir-
itual and indelible character.

Scripture with all Christian antiquity clearly
expresses this notion of the sacrament of Bap-
tism which effects our entrance into the Church
of God.

" Unless a man be born again of water and
the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the king-
dom of God" (John Hi. 5).

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved" (Mark xvi. 16).

" Going therefore, teach ye all nations, bap-
tizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt,
xxviii. 19. Cf. Acts ii. 37-41, viii. 12, 16, 38,
ix. 18, x. 48, xvi. 33, xviii. 8, xix. 5 ; I. Cor.
i. 14, 16; Rom. vi. 3, 4; Col. ii. 12; I. Cor.
xii. 13 ; Eph. iv. 5 ; Tit. iii. 4-7. For the
Fathers see Waterworth, ' ' Faith of Catholics,"
vol. ii. pp. 108-131.)

May we not understand baptism of water in a
figurative sense ? Is not baptism of the Spirit
sufficient ?

No, as the Church has declared (Trent.,
Sess. vii. can. 2). I remember on a non-
Catholic mission in Jacksonville, 111., meeting
a man who assured me that the voice of the
Holy Spirit had told him that he was sanctified
by a spiritual baptism without any external

Digitized by

The Sacraments.

361

washing of water. Of course it is as impos-
sible to argue with such a one as with an in-
sane man who believes himself the Emperor
Napoleon.

Our Saviour clearly and emphatically de-
clares water necessary (John iii. 5): "Unless
a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost"; and so he was understood by the
Apostles (Acts viii. 27-39, x. 44-48, etc.), and
ever since by the Universal Church. When,
however, baptism of water is impossible be-
cause unknown, or water is unobtainable, it
may be supplied by what is known as the
baptism of blood or martyrdom, or the baptism
of desire, which consists in the perfect sorrow
which blots out sin.

Do you not read in the Scripture that many
were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ?
(Acts ii. 38, viii, 12-16, xix. 2-5),

Yes ; but it is plain that these words do
not indicate a denial of baptism in the names
of the Trinity, as . laid down by Christ Him-
self (Matt, xxviii. 19), but rather a description
of Christian baptism as opposed to John's bap-
tism, or the various Jewish ablutions of the
time. This is clear from Acts xix. 2-5.

Is it not unjust to impose the obligations of a
church on children without their consent, and be-
fore they understand their import?

Digitized by

362

The Question Box.

Christ's baptism is not something to be
accepted or rejected at will, but is an abso-
lute necessity of salvation. No obligations,
therefore, are imposed on the child, save those
which he is bound to accept when he reaches
the age of reason. We acquire our civil citi-
zenship by the fact of our natural birth, with-
out being questioned on the matter. Why not
our divine citizenship, an infinitely greater
good, by the fact of our supernatural birth in
baptism. If some one left your child a large
inheritance, would you demand that it be left
in abeyance until your child was old enough to
accept it or reject it? And behold baptism
makes us heirs of the kingdom of God, our
" eternal inheritance M (Heb. ix. 15).

Why do you rebaptize Protestants when the^
enter your Church ?

I know of a case of a minister of the gospel
whom the priest required to be baptized again.

We do not rebaptize them, for baptism can
be received only once. The conditional bap-
tism that we often administer to converts, with
the form " If thou art not baptized, I baptize
thee, etc." is a safeguard made necessary be-
cause of the lax views and careless practice re-
garding baptism that generally prevail outside
the Catholic Church.

Some, for instance, deny altogether its sac-

Digitized by

The Sacraments,

363

ramental character ; others in baptizing a num-
ber at once sprinkle the water, and that so care-
lessly that it merely touches the clothes of
some; and again, others use a different form
than the one prescribed by our Lord (Matt,
xxviii. 19).

I remember hearing of one case not long since
when one minister immersed the subjects for
baptism in a large tank near the pulpit, while
another from a distance repeated the form " I
baptize thee in the name of the Lord Jesus.* '
Unless, therefore, there is certainty about the
validity of the former baptism, non-Catholics
are baptized conditionally on entering the
Catholic Church. If perchance the original
baptism was validly performed, the subsequent
. ceremony is not a sacrament at all.

May I, a Protestant, be sponsor for a Catholic
child at its baptism ?

No; for it is evident that a non-Catholic
sponsor would not be likely to provide for the
Catholic bringing up of the child, if perchance
the parents failed in their duty.

Again, no outsider has a right to participate
in the sacraments of the Catholic Church.

I am a Baptist, and hold that nothing else but
immersion is baptism. Was that not the prac-
tice of the primitive Christians ? Was not Christ
the Lord baptized by immersion ?

Digitized by

364

The Question Box.

Well, you are a good close-communion Bap-
tist, I suppose; but you hold a new teach-
ing that dates only from the seventeenth cen-
tury. Catholics are fully aware that the early
practice of the Church (cf. the baptism of
Christ, Matt. iii. 16, Mark i. 10; that of the
eunuch, Acts viii. 38, 39, and St. Paul's sym-
bol of burial and resurrection, Rom. vi. 4,
Col. ii. 12) was to immerse, and that this cus-
tom prevailed in both the East and West in
the solemn administration of the sacrament till
the end of the thirteenth century.

But, on the other hand, there is abundant
evidence to prove that immersion was not the
only mode, and that pouring on of water
was considered equally valid. It is doubtful,
to say the very least, whether the three thou-
sand converts of St. Peter on Pentecost day
(Acts ii. 41) were immersed, because of the
scarcity of water in the city of Jerusalem
(Robertson, " Biblical Researches in Pales-
tine,1 9 vol. i. pages 479-516) ; or whether im-
mersion was practised in the home of Cornelius
(Acts x. 47, 48), or in the prison at Philippi
(Acts xvi. 33). It is certain that invalids un-
able to leave their beds were not immersed,
as St. Cyprian (a.d. 248) expressly declares
when questioned as to the validity of clinical
baptism. Quoting Ezech. xxxvi. 25 as a
prophecy of Christian baptism, and Num. viii.

Digitized by

TJie Sacraments.

365

and xix., where reference is made to the Jew-
ish sprinkling, he says: " Whence it is ap-
parent that the sprinkling of water has like
force with the saving washing" (Epis. lxix.
11-12). In the " Doctrine of the Apostles,* ' a
document written towards the close of the
first century, reference is made to baptism by
pouring (N. vii.)

Indeed, the positive necessity of baptism,
which is plain from John iii. 5, proves con-
clusively that immersion, which is generally
difficult and often impossible to practise, could
not have been established as essential by the
All- Wise Son of God. Must men in prison,
the sick and the dying, the child just born,
the Esquimaux in the bitter cold of the Arctic
circle, or the Bedouin of the parched Syrian
desert, where water is most scarce, each and
all be immersed, or allowed to die without bap-
tism?

So say many Baptists, who without a thought
suffer infants and adults to die unbaptized, a
criminal neglect against which the Catholic
Chtfrch protests most emphatically.

If, again, immersion be the only valid mode,
none are really baptized save those who have
been immersed. It would follow then that over
a hundred years after the Reformation un-
baptized men (a.d. 1638) restored the Church,
which had been entirely lost in the world,

Digitized by

366

The Question Box.

by giving to one another that which they did
not possess themselves. If baptism had en-
tirely perished, whence the right of any man
to restore it on his own authority?

The Catholic Church, therefore, as the in-
fallible interpreter of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,
declares that all three ways of baptizing are
equally valid, by immersion, by pouring, or
by sprinkling. The present mode of pouring
arose from the many inconveniences connected
with immersion, frequent mention of which is
made in the writings of the early Church
Fathers.

But, as a necessary safeguard, Catholics are
not permitted to use the form of sprinkling.

Does not the word Baptize always signify im-
mersion in the original Greek?

By no means; it sometimes means in pro-
fane authors, and even in the Scripture, pour-
ing or sprinkling (Num. xix. 12 ; Mark
vii. 4). Referring to Mark vii. 4, a Protest-
ant writer, Hodge (vol. iii* page 533, "Sys-
tem. Theol.,,)> says : "To maintain that beds
or couches were immersed, is a mere act
of desperation. Baptism means here, as it
does everywhere when used of a religious rite,
symbolical purification by water, without the
slightest reference to the mode in which that
purification was effected" (See Kitto, "Bibl.

Digitized by

The Sacraments.

367

Encycl.," Baptism; McClintock and Strong,
Cyclopaedia).

Why do you baptize children in your Church,
when the Scriptures plainly require faith and
repentance ? "He that belie veth and is bap-
tized shall be saved " (Mark xvi. 16). " Re-
pent (do penance) and be baptized " (Acts ii. 38.
See also Acts ii. 37-4*, 12-37, xvi. 14-31,
xviii. 8, xix. 18).

It is evident that these passages of Holy
Scripture refer to adults only.

The Apostles, preaching to adults, required
faith in the gospel of Christ and repentance
for all past sins as absolute conditions before
administering baptism. So the Catholic Church
to-day, in perfect accord with this Apostolic
teaching, demands of all unbaptized adults
who seek admittance to her fold faith in ali the
doctrines of Christ and repentance of till past
sins.

The necessity of infant baptism rests, —
1st. On the fact of original sin. Every man
because of Adam's sin is born into the world
deprived of God's grace, and of the right of
entrance into heaven. "We were by nature
children of wrath 99 (Eph. ii. 3). " Wherefore
as by one man sin entered into this world, and
by sin death ; and so death passed upon all
men, in whom all have sinned' 9 (Rom. v. 12).

Digitized by

368 The Question Box.

2d. On the words of Jesus Christ, who ex-
pressly teaches the necessity of every individual's
being cleansed from this sin and freed from
this wrath by baptismal regeneration. "Un-
less a man be born again of water and the
Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom
of God" (John iii. 5). The word for "a
man" in the original Greek is Hs> which
means any one — man, woman, or child.

3d. On the constant practice of Christian
tradition. Origen wrote in the third century :
* ' The Church received from the Apostles the
tradition of baptizing even little ones" (In
Epis. ad Rom., lib. v. n. 9); and again:
' * Whence is it that since the baptism of the
Church is given for the remission of sins, bap-
tism is, according to the observance of the
Church, given even to little children? Be-
cause assuredly, if there were nothing in little
children needing remission and pardon, the
grace of baptism would be superfluous " (Horn,
viii. inLevit.) (For other patristic testimony
see Waterworth, "Faith of Catholics," vol. ii.
pp. 108-131.)

It is probable that there were children in the
households baptized by St. Paul (I. Cor. i. 16 ;
Acts xvi. 15, 33), although there is no con-
clusive proof in the New Testament of the
practice of infant baptism. In this matter
many Protestants inconsistently violate their

Digitized by

The Sacraments.

369

principle of the Bible only as a rule of faith,
and follow the divine tradition of the Catho-
lic Church.

Again, if a man must be justified by an act
of faith in Jesus Christ, and an infant is in-
capable of such act, it follows logically on
Protestant principles that children ought not
to be baptized. So are they "tossed to and
fro, and carried about with every wind of doc-
trine" (Eph. iv. 14) — Baptist against Metho-
dist or Episcopalian. Denying the existence
of a divine authority, how can they know the
truth? In the meantime countless little ones
die as they were born, "children of wrath.' 9

What is meant by Baptism for the dead ? (I.
Cor. xv. 29).

No one knows with certainty what is meant
by this obscure text of St. Paul. Many inter-
pretations have been suggested, viz., that it
refers to baptism administered over the tombs
of the martyrs, or at the point of death, or
some symbolic ceremony performed by the re-
lations of a deceased catechumen.

Digitized by

370 ' The Question Box.

CONFIRMATION.

Is there any proof in the Bible that Christ in-
stituted Confirmation as a sacrament distinct
from Baptism ?

Jesus Christ, the night before He died,
promised to send the Holy Spirit (John xv.
26, xvi. 13; cf. vii. 39), which promise He
fulfilled in the upper room at Jerusalem (Acts
ii. 4). The sacrament of Confirmation, where-
by through the imposition of the bishop's
hands, anointing and prayer, baptized Christians
receive the Holy Ghost in order to be con-
firmed in the faith, is clearly mentioned in Acts
viii. 14-17. "Now when the Apostles who
were in Jerusalem had heard that Samaria had
received the word of God, they sent unto them
Peter and John. Who, when they were come,
prayed for them, that they might receive the
Holy Ghost. For He was not as yet come
upon any of them ; but they were only bap-
tized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then
they laid their hands upon them, and they re-
ceived the Holy Ghost.' '

St. Paul administered this sacrament at
Ephesus. 1 'And When Paul had imposed his
hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon
them, and they spoke with tongues and pro-
phesied" (Acts xix. 6). In writing to the
Corinthians he says : ' { He that confirmeth us

Digitized by

Confirmation.

371

with you in. Christ, and that hath anointed us,
is God; who also hath sealed us, and given
the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts* * (II.
Cor. i. 21).

The Fathers of the Church frequently men-
tion the sacrament of Confirmation ( * * Faith
of Catholics,' ' vol. ii. pp. 132-149). St. Cyp-
rian, for example, commenting on Acts viii.,
says: "Because they had received the legiti-
mate baptism, . . . what was wanting,
that was done by Peter and John, that prayer
being made for them, and hands imposed, the
Holy Ghost should be invoked, and poured
forth upon them. Which now also is done
amongst us, so that they who are baptized in
the Church are presented to the Bishops of
the Church, and by our prayer and imposi-
tion of hands, they receive the Holy Ghost,
and are perfected with the seal of the Lord "
(Ep. 73).

The fact that those Oriental schismatic
churches which separated from Rome in the
fifth century still recognize Confirmation as a
sacrament of Jesus Christ, is proof positive of
its apostolic origin. The Catholic, however, has
the divine, infallible witness of the Church of
God (Trent., Sess. vii., De Conf., can. 1).

Digitized by

372

The Question Box.

PENANCE.

Why does your Church distinguish between
sins? Are they not all equal before God?

Sin is the conscious and voluntary trans-
gression of the law of God, a direct violation
and contempt of Ihe moral order established
by the Divine Will, and a turning from God,
our Ultimate End, to find our satisfaction in
creatures. In the Christian it implies, further-
more, contempt for our Lord and Master Jesus
Christ.

Reason tells us that'sins are not all of equal
malice. The hurried mechanical prayer, or
the quickly repented outburst of temper, are
surely not on an equal plane with deliberate
murder, adultery, or slander. Scripture is also
witness to the distinction between mortal sins,
which are deliberate and voluntary transgres-
sions of a commandment gravely binding (such
as Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit
adultery), depriving the soul of God's friendship
and causing the loss of eternal life (" Neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
drunkards shall possess the Kingdom of God,"
I. Cor. vi. 9, 10; " If thou wilt enter into
life, keep the commandments,,, Matt. xix. 17),
— and venial sins, which do not cause the spir-
itual death of the soul, although they imply
neglect of the commandments of God. "In

Digitized by

Penance.

373

many things we all offend" (James iii. 2) ;
" If we say that we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves" (I. John i. 8; Matt. xii. 36).

Does not St. James teach that one sin is as bad
as another when he says : " Whosoever shall
keep the whole law, and yet -offend in one point,
he is guilty of all " ? (James ii. 10).

Yes ; but he is speaking of the comparative
guilt and malice of mortal sins, like murder
and adultery, as we learn from the verse fol-
lowing (James ii. 11).

What is the sin against the Holy Ghost ? Is
this the only unpardonable "sin ?

The sin against the Holy Ghost is gen-
erally thought to be the continued and wilful
resisting until death of the grace of God,
whether to embrace God's truth or to obey
God's commandments. It is not unpardon-
able, absolutely speaking, for God is always
ready to forgive the repentant sinner ; as a mat-
ter of fact, it is not pardoned, because the sin-
ner deliberately refuses to co-operate with God's
grace, or to do what he knows is absolutely
necessary for salvation.

The case mentioned by our Saviour (Matt,
xii. 31, 32; Mark iii. 28-30; L,uke xii. 10)
was the wilful rejection of the miracles Jesus
Christ had wrought in proof of His divine

Digitized by

374 The Question Box.

mission, and the malicious ascribing of them
to the power of Beelzebub, the prince of devils
(Matt. xii. 24).

In our own day, those are guilty of the same
sin who, knowing the Catholic Church to be
the one, true Church of Jesus Christ, persis-
tently refuse to enter it because of worldly in-
terests, loss of property, friends, social or poli-
tical position. ,

Where in the Bible is auricular confession
taught ?

Why do Catholics have secret confession ?
Did Jesus ever tell us to confess our sins to a
priest ?

Granted that the Apostles had the power to for-
give sins, what proof is there that their power
has been perpetuated ?

The Catholic confesses his sins to a priest
because he knows that Jesus Christ commanded
him to do so, by the institution of the Sacra-
ment of Penance.

That the Saviour gave the power to pardon
sin to His Apostles is clear from John xx. 21-
23. ' ' As the Father hath sent me, I also
send you. When He had said this, He breathed
on them, and He said to them : Receive ye the
Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive,
they . are forgiven them ; and whose sins you
shall retain, they are retained."

Digitized by

Penance.

375

The Father had sent His only begotten Son
into the world to redeem it from sin. Our
Lord tells us Himself that His mission was to
save sinners.

* * For the Son of Man is come to save that
which was lost" (Matt, xviii. n).

' 1 1 was not sent but to the sheep that are
lost of the house of Israel " (Matt. xv. 24).

"They that are in health need not a phy-
sician, but they that are ill, etc. For I am
not come to call the just, but sinners" (Matt,
ix. 12, 13, i. 21 ; I. Tim. i. 15).

He frequently pardoned sinners their offences :
Magdalen (Luke vii. 47), the woman in adul-
tery (John viii. 11), the thief on the Cross
(Luke xxiii. 43), the man sick with the palsy
(Matt. ix. 2). In the last instance He in-
sists on this power of forgiveness as Son of
Man, despite the objection of the scribes and
their accusation of blasphemy (Matt. ix. 3),
and performs a miracle to prove it. " But that
you may know that the Son of Man hath
power on earth to forgive sins (then said He to
the man sick of the palsy), Arise, take up
thy bed and go into thy house."

Remembering, then, that Christ was the Son
of God (" All power is given to Me in heaven
and in earth," Matt, xxviii. 18), and that His
mission was the salvation of sinners, the mean-
ing of His words is evident— As the Father

Digitized by

376 The Question Box.

hath sent Me to pardon sin, I also send you
clothed with My divine authority to pardon sin
in My Name. Receive the Holy Ghost, the Third
Person of the Blessed Trinity, to whom is es-
pecially ascribed the sanctifying of the souls of
men from sin (" the charity of God is poured
forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, who is
given to us ") that you may give that spirit to
repentant sinners. If you forgive a sinner, he
is really forgiven by Me; if you refuse for-
giveness, I will refuse also. " Whose sins you
shall forgive, they are forgiven them; whose
sins you shall retain, they are retained."

This ratifying of the Apostolic judgment in
heaven is also declared by our Saviour on an-
other occasion; "Whatsoever you shall bind
upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven ; and
whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall
be loosed also in heaven 99 (Matt, xviii. 18).

Did we not know the wonderful power of
prejudice to read into the Scriptures its own
views and theories, we could not under-
stand how any believer in the word of God
could deny that Jesus Christ gave to the Apos-
tles the power of forgiving sins in His Name.

Indeed, the Scriptures are so clear that some
have granted the Apostles had the power of
pardoning sin,x but they hold that the power
died with them. But this is unreasonable.
Useless indeed would have been so mighty a

Digitized by

Penance.

377

power if its exercise were to be limited to the
sinners of the first century. No ; as long as
sin will last — that is, until the end of the world
— so long must this God-given remedy for sin
exist. The pardoning power was not an extra-
ordinary gift, as the gift of tongues, prophecy,
or miracles (I. Cor. xii. 10), but the ordinary
and necessary power to continue Christ's work
for the salvation of souls. He came to teach,
and to pardon sin ; the Apostles are to teach and
to pardon sin for ever in His Name (Matt, xxviii.
20 ; John xx. 21-26). Every other way of ob-
taining forgiveness is now superseded by the
Apostolic priesthood, whose giving or denial of
absolution is by God's promise confirmed by
Himself in heaven.

How is this power to be exercised? Evi-
dently this two-fold power of forgiving and re-
taining sin implies a judgment based on the
knowledge of each individual case. The Apos-
tle or his successor must have reasons to for-
give, viz., a supernatural sorrow on the sinner's
part for all grievous sins committed, with a
firm purpose to sin no more ; and reasons to
refuse forgiveness, namely, the lack of proper
dispositions of sorrow, shown, for example, by
refusal to restore ill-gotten goods, to pardon an
enemy, or to avoid the proximate occasions of
sin. This necessarily supposes full knowledge
of the state of the penitent's conscience, which

Digitized by

378 The Question Box.

is possible only by personal acknowledgment,
or confession. 4 (Council of Trent, Sess. xiv.
ch. 5.)

The Catholic interpretation of John xx. will,
perhaps, be more clear to you by a comparison.

Suppose, to-day, that in a prison of the
Philippines a number of prisoners convicted of
various crimes under the Spanish rule were
still confined, and that there was question of
the justice or the exceeding severity of their
sentences. President Roosevelt, informed of
this, determines to send to Manila twelve com-
missioners with full powers to investigate the
charges made. You hear him say in the White
^use to these twelve men : * * All necessary
power in this case is given me by the people
of these United States. As they have chosen
me to represent them, so I have chosen you to
act in my name and with my authority. I, as
President, possess the pardoning power over
crime. Receive your commission; whose
crimes you shall pardon, they are pardoned
by me; whose crimes you shall not pardon,
they are not pardoned by me,"

What would honestly be your inference from
these words? At once you would say: 1.
That these twelve men had received from the
President the power of pardoning ; 2. That
they had sole and absolute control of the crimi-
nal cases in question, and that the power of all

Digitized by

Penance.

379

other judges immediately ceased on their ap-
pointment ; 3. That their power could not be
rightly exercised without, a thorough investi-
gation of each and every case ; 4* That their
authority would last until the last " guilty " or
" not guilty M had been pronounced.

So the Apostolic commission supposes equally
that : 1 . That the twelve Apostles received from
God the power of pardoning ; 2. That the Jew-
ish way of pardon was superseded by the Chris-
tian; 3. That the exercise of their [power ne-
cessitates confession; 4. That their authority
will last until the death of the last sinner.

Catholics, moreover, are not left to the vary-
ing, contradictory views of human private
judgment, but have the divine, infallible wit-
ness of the Church of God (Trent., Sess. xiv.),
which voices the constant Christian tradition
from the beginning. * (For the testimonies of
the Fathers read " Faith of Catholics/' vol. iii.
pp. 36-113; " Manual of Catholic Theology,' '
vol. ii. pp. 466-474.

One striking patristic argument is to compare
the confession of sins in the spiritual life to the
confession of one's bodily sickness to a phy-
sician. Says St. Basil: "The confession of
sins follows the same rule as the manifestation
of bodily infirmities. As men, therefore, do
not disclose their bodily infirmities to every
one, nor to a few at random, Jbut to such as

Digitized by

380 The Question Box.

are skilful in the cure of them, so also ought
the confession of sins to be made to those who
are able to apply a remedy M (Reg. Brev. 228).

The mind of the early Church is seen by
the condemnation of the Novatians of Rome in
the third century. They held that those who
had fallen away during the persecution of
Decius and who had offered sacrifice to idols
could not be pardoned, whereas the Church
then as always maintained that her power of
pardoning extended to all repentant sinners
without exception (Alzog, Church History,
vol. i. p. 429 et seq.)

Indeed, when Christians reflect for a moment
that the Saviour established the sacrament of
baptism for the cleansing of original sin in
which we had no personal share, ought they
not naturally expect that He would have in-
stituted the sacrament of penance for the cleans-
ing of those mortal sins committed after bap-
tism whereof we are personally guilty? If
Christ Jesus gave us the certainty of admis-
sion into His friendship by baptism, is it not
becoming His divine wisdom to give His peo-
ple certainty of their return after having again
become His enemies?

What degree of power do you priests claim in
confession ? Do you really pardon sin, or merely
intercede with God for the sinner ?

Digitized by

Penance.

38i

The Catholic priest pardons in the name of
Christ, as his minister and ambassador.

"He hath placed in us the word of recon-
ciliation. For Christ, therefore, we are am-
bassadors, God as it were exhorting by us.
For Christ, we beseech you, be reconciled to
God 99 (II. Cor. v. 20).

" I^et a man so account of us as of the min-
isters of Christ, and the dispensers of the mys-
teries of God" (I. Cor. iv. 1).

Do priests ever refuse to forgive sins? If
they do, what happens then?

A priest as Christ's ambassador of pardon
cannot refuse forgiveness unless he perceives a
lack of necessary dispositions of sorrow on the
part of the penitent ; for example, if the sinner
refuse to make good ah injury done^ to avoid
the proximate occasion of his sin, to accept
the penance imposed, or to use the means of
grace and perseverance in well-doing. The
power given the Apostles was a two- fold power
of forgiving or refusing forgiveness: "Whose
sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them ;
and whose sins you shall retain, they are re-
tained 99 (John xx. 23). The denial of pardon
by the priesthood means denial on the part of
God, as the Saviour says clearly: "Whatso-
ever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound
also in heaven" (Matt, xviii. 18).

Digitized by

382

The Question Box.

Is it not blasphemy to declare that a mere man
can forgive my offences against God ?

Catholics do not confess to any man indif-
ferently, but only to a priest, whom St. Paul
calls "the minister of Christ, and the dis-
penser (steward) of the mysteries of God" (I.
Cor. iv. i). The priest does not forgive as
man, but as the representative and the ambas-
sador of Jesus Christ. " For what I forgave,
if I have forgiven anything, for your sakes
have I done it, in the person of Christ" (II.
Cor. ii. 10). " We are, therefore, ambassa-
dors for Christ ; God, as it were, exhorting by
us. For Christ, we beseech you, be ye recon-
ciled to God" (II. Cor. v. 20).

This indeed is the very objection urged
against our Saviour when He forgave, as the
Son of Man, the man sick of the palsy (Mark
ii. 3-12). " Why," said the Jews, "does this
man speak thus? He blasphemeth. Who
can forgive sins but God only?" The ene-
mies of Christ Jesus denied His divinity, and
therefore His power of forgiving sins. The
enemies of Chrises Church, denying its divin-
ity to-day, logically must deny it the power to
forgive sins, delegated it by Jesus Christ the
day of His resurrection (John xx. 19-23).

Why not confess to God directly? Can God
abrogate His power ?

Digitized by

Penance.

383

Because Jesus Christ taught us to go to God
indirectly through the ministry which He es-
tablished. Why does not a soldier report for
duty directly to the . commanding general ?
Why does not a citizen pay his taxes directly
to the governor of his State?

God does not abrogate His power, but dele-
gates it to men who forgive in the name and
with the authority of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God. " For Christ, therefore, we are ambassa-
dors* ' (i. e., with delegated power: II. Cor.
v. 20).

And do we not confess all the better to God
when aided by His own ministry tp do so sor-
rowfully and hopefully? Remember, too, that
Catholics begin their confession by saying, " I
confess to Almighty God and to you, Father/ '

Does not the confessional give the priest too
much power? I object to outside interference
with my private affairse

The Catholic priest undoubtedly claims the
right to lay down the moral law authoritatively
in the sacrament of penance, and to enforce
obedience thereto under penalty of the denial
of absolution. His is the power to forgive sins
in the name of Jesus Christ, and to advise,
warn, encourage, and help souls in their daily
struggle against sin and temptation. He has
no right to pry into your private aftairs, or to

Digitized by

384

The Question Box.

interfere in family matters; he has no right
whatsoever to question you unless with regard
to sin or the danger thereof.

Do you object to the interference of the state
when, in the best interests of society, it enforces
the law against criminals? Then you should
not object to the Catholic priesthood when, in
the best interests of the individual, it enforces
the law of Christ against evil and the evil-doer.

How can a priest listen year after year to sins
without his own mind becoming corrupted ?

Because God gives His ministers great and
special graces to keep their hearts pure, daily
Mass and their own weekly confession being
the chief. Because, again, the priest listens as
another Christ, with sympathy and love for the
repentant sinner, who is causing " more joy in
heaven than the ninety- nine just that need not
penance" (I^uke xv. 7). The more he under-
stands the malice of sin and the more he realizes
its evil effects upon the sinner, the more he
hates it as the great curse of the people of God.
Does the judge on the bench or the physician
in the sick-room become corrupted because both
come in daily contact with sin and the effects of
sin ? No, the heart becomes corrupted only by
consenting to personal temptation.

Is a priest always bound to keep secret what
he hears in confession ?

Digitized by

Penance.

385

If a priest knew through confession the real
murderer, and an innocent man was to hang for
it, would not common justice demand that he tell
it?

A priest is bound, even at the cost of
life itself, never to betray in any way what
he has heard in the secrecy of the confessional.
Frequently priests have gone to prison rather
than betray this trust, although most courts re-
spect it on the mere basis of natural law. The
confidence of millions of the Catholic people
the world over and their frequent reception of
the sacrament of Penance are ample proof that
the Catholic priesthood has, through God's
grace, been ever loyal to their trust.

One of the reasons why confession will never
become the general practice in any Protestant
church — for example, the Protestant Episcopal
— lies in the fact that its ministers are not
- bound by any divine law to keep secret the sins
confided to them, and fail to realize their re-
sponsibility.

The absolute secrecy of the seal of confes-
sion is also recognized by all the Oriental
Christian sects, the Russian Church being* the
one exception because of its utter subserviency
to the state.

Was not the practice of confession introduced
by the IV. Council of Lateran in A. D. 1215 ?

Digitized by

386

The Question Box.

By no mean*. This Council supposes the
practice of confession everywhere existing, for
it declares that "all the faithful, men and
women, shall confess their sins, at least once a
year, to a priest approved by the Church.* '
The very fact of passing a law as to a detail
of time, which was at once universally recog-
nized as binding, proves conclusively that con-
fession was universally practised. And we
have witness after witness for ' this fact in the
writings of the early Fathers (" Faith of Catho-
lics," vol. iii. pp. 1-129).

Do you honestly think that such an institu-
tion, requiring of all Christians, from the Pope
downwards, the humiliation of kneeling before
a fellow-man to tell even the most hidden sins
of the heart, could have been imposed on the
Christian world so quietly and so easily that
history sa}rs not a single word of any opposi-
tion thereto? Imagine to-day the Church of
England attempting to compel all her church
members to follow out as a binding obligation
the views of the High-Church party on this
point. Why, the pulpit and the press would
re-echo the protest the world over.

Do you honestly think that if, as so many
Protestants have declared, auricular confession
is an invention of the Catholic priesthood, that
popes, bishops, and priests who had the ability
to invent such an institution, wbuld not have

Digitized by

Penance.

387

considered the terrible burden they were plac-
ing upon themselves ? For, humanly speaking,
the hearing of confessions, although it has its
consoling- side in the winning back of thou-
sands of souls to God after lives of sin, is one
of the hardest trials in the priest's ministry.
To sit for hoursc^-twelve sometimes in one day
— in fetid air, a close box, inhaling the bad
breaths of hundreds* and hearkening ta the
sorrows and sina of men until the heart is sick
— this surely is not an occupation that any
human authority could devise, or any human
power compel men to submit to.

Remember, too, that it often means a hurried
drive of many miles in the most bitter weather,
in the blackest midnight, over almost impass-
able roads, to hear the confession of some poor
dying soul; or again, a visit to the hospital,
the pest-house, and the leper asylum ; or again,
the going from soldier to soldier on the firing
line of a field of battle. A priest in Northern
Iowa told me not long since of many a drive of
fifty and seventy-five miles to hear the con-
fession of the dying when the thermometer
registered twenty- five degrees below zero, in the
old days, thirty years ago, his parish embracing
then an area of some hundred miles or more of
Iowa and Minnesota. Will you tell me this is
of man's invention ?

Digitized by

388

The Question Box.

If, as you claim, you possess the Apostles'
pardoning power, why not their power of work-
ing miracles?

Did not Jesus tell His Apostles to heal the sick
as well as to pardon sin, and preach the gospel ?
Do you priests claim to heal diseases? " He
gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast
them out, and to heal all manner of sickness, and
all manner of disease " (Matt. x. i). " Heal the
sick, cleanse the leper, raise the dead, cast out
devils; freely you have received, freely give"
(Matt. x. 8). Read also Luke ix. 2, x. 9;
John xiv. 12.

Jesus Christ came to teach men the truth of
God and by His death win for them God's
grace and friendship, so that loving Him, and
the brethren for His sake, they might save their
souls. The Apostles were given for ever all
things necessary to carry on this divine work
of teaching and saving souls — v.g.y the power
to teach (Matt, xxviii.; Mark xvi.)> to bap-
tize (ibid.), to pardon sin (John xx.), to offer
sacrifice (I^uke xxii.)

The Apostles were given for themselves, as
an extraordinary gift, the power of winning by
miracles countless Jews and pagans whom
Christ knew would be won to His gospel in no
other way.

Christ did not come to heal the bodies of
men, but their souls ; the Church of Christ is

Digitized by

Penance.

389

not a divine school of medicine or surgery,
but a divine society to teach men the doctrines
and commandments of the Son of God. The
gift of healing is not at all necessary for this
purpose.

Of course, there have been in the history
of the Catholic Church many saintly men and
women who have worked by the power of God
wonderful works, as He promised (John xiv.
12) ; but that was a special, personal gift
that thereby souls might be won to Christ,
and not the ordinary prerogative of every
Christian.

Again, God frequently works miracles
through the ordinary administration of the
Sacrament of Extreme Unction, which Christ
established for the cure of the body as well as
of the soul, and by the sacrifice of the Mass
offered up by the priests of the New I^aw.
But miracles are exceptional things, and are
not a part of God's ordinary providential
working.

The Catholic Church protests alike against
the rationalistic denial of all miracles whatso-
ever despite the evidence, and the modern
current superstitions of decadent Protestant-
ism, which would declare every Christian a
wonder-worker.

Does not confession weaken character?

Digitized by

390

The Question Box,

Is not confession an incentive to sin by mak-
ing forgiveness so easy?

Do not Catholics go to confession, and then
commit the same sin over again ?

On the contrary, we have already seen that
certain conditions are absolutely required, be-
fore God will ratify the absolution of the con-
fessor. Pardon is not granted, for instance, to
the drunkard who has a mere natural sorrow
because of his degradation and the poverty and
shame of his wife and children ; to the thief
who has no intention of giving back the money
he has stolen ; to the impure man who will , not
avoid the proximate occasion of his sin ; to the
bitter, angry soul who refuses to forgive the
offending brother, etc.

We know perfectly well that human nature
is weak, and human passions strong ; that the
world of wicked men and women is full of
temptations; that the flesh rebels against the
Spirit (Rom. vii. 23), and the devil does his
best to tempt us (I. Pet. v. 8). But if a
Catholic yield to these temptations it is not in
virtue of the sacrament he has received, but
because he is false to the sacramental promise
he made to God to sin no more.

We are willing also to grant that there have
been abuses; that some Catholics go to their
confession in a mechanical, perfunctory sort of
a way, and do not realize the dignity and

Digitized by

Penance.

391

sacredness of this divine sacrament. But is
there any good thing in the world that sinful
man has not sometimes abused? The sacra-
ment of matrimony, intended to sanctify and
bless the pure union of man and woman, has
often been made a mere tool for worldly advan-
tage or a mere instrument of lust, as divorce
statistics show. The sacrament of Baptism, es-
tablished to initiate the Christian into the
Church of God, has been used to serve an un-
believers worldly aims. The Bible has been
abused by every false prophet from the begin-
ning, in imitation of Satan (Matt. iv. 6).
The press, the pulpit, the theatre, the stock
exchange, inventions, the arts — all these have
been abused. Would you, then, abolish them <_
altogether ?

The history of the sacrament of Penance is
proof positive of its being one of the greatest
incentives to virtue the world knows of. Could
it have survived during these nineteen hundred
years if it were indeed an incentive to sin?
Would millions of the most intelligent men and
women still bend the knee ? It is impossible to
think so. The corruption of morals that every-
where followed the abolition of confession in
the sixteenth century made many of the Re-
formers wish for its re-establishment. Voltaire
wrote in the eighteenth century: "The ene-
mies of the Roman Church, who have opposed

Digitized by

392 The Question Box.

so beneficial an institution, have taken from
man the greatest restraint that can be put upon
crime,, ("Diet. Phil.," art. Catech. du Cur6).

If confession were an incentive to sin, how is
it that the most hardened sinners never go, and
the best Catholics are seen frequently at the
sacred tribunal? If it weakened character,
how then do you account for its reformation of
the habitual drunkard, its recall of the penitent
Magdalen, and the comfort and peace it gives
the condemned criminal? If it encouraged
crime, why would Catholic fathers and mothers
rejoice so much in seeing their boys and girls
go frequently to confession, and be sad of heart
when they begin to neglect this duty? If it
made Catholics worse, how then do you ex-
plain the fact that Protestants often desire for
their servants and employees Catholics who go
regularly to confession ?

The fact is evident. The sacrament of Pen-
ance is a guide to the doubting, a comfort to
the afflicted, an encouragement to the weak, a
warning to the young, a strong arm to the
wavering, an adviser to the ignorant, a menace
to the hardened sinner, a joy to the truly re-
pentant; it is Jesus Christ speaking to the
world: "Come to Me, all you that labor and
are burdened, and I will refresh you" (Matt,
xi. 28).

Why, sometimes non-Catholics, tormented by

Digitized by

Penance.

393

the anguish of unconfessed sin, have desired to
receive the sacrament, and finding this impossi-
ble, have craved the privilege of unburdening
their conscience to the trusted Catholic priest.

What provision does the Catholic Church make
for a Catholic who cannot reach a priest in order
to confess?

How are non-Catholics forgiven their sins?

God does not require the impossible. A
Catholic, therefore, in danger of death, and
unable to obey the law of confession, is bound
to make an act of perfect sorrow for all sins
committed, namely, an act of sorrow from the
highest supernatural motive — the love of God for
Himself alone. A non-Catholic, who is invinci-
bly ignorant of the Catholic Church, and the
sacrament of Penance instituted by Christ, is
pardoned in the same way.

Would not a confession to the one offended or
wronged have a better moral effect upon the
sinner than confessing to a priest ? Would that
not be a better proof of sorrow?

Catholics confess to the priesthood of Christ
because they know the Sacrament of Penance
to be a divine institution, and that obedience to
Christ in this matter is evident proof of their
sorrow and God's forgiveness.

Our questioner seems to forget that God is

Digitized by

394

The Question Box,

offended when we injure our neighbor in
thought, word, or deed, and He has prescribed
clearly the way of pardon. Remember, too,
that a Catholic who has grievously wronged his
neighbor in character or property cannot be
pardoned in the Sacrament of Penance, if he
refuse to make good the injury done.

Again, there are certain sins against God,
and against one's self, as unbelief, blasphemy,
lust, in which our neighbor does not figure.

How can sin be pardoned by merely telling it ?

It cannot be, according to the teaching of
the Catholic Church. Judas was not par-
doned, although he confessed his crime (Matt,
xxvii. 4). Confession indeed is only one of
the three parts of the sacrament of Penance^ and
by no means the most essential, the other two
being contrition and satisfaction. Without con-
trition, or "sorrow and detestation of sin, with
a firm purpose to sin no more" (Council of
Trent), there is no forgiveness possible. The
Catholic must have a true, intense sorrow for
each and every mortal sin he has committed ;
the motive of his sorrow must be supernatural,
resting not on the natural consequences of his
sin, but on the fear of hell, the loss of heaven,
or the love of God and Jesus Christ. He
must hate and detest sin as the greatest evil,
in the world, and sincerely promise to avoid it

Digitized by

Penance.

395

and the occasions thereof for the .future. He
must be ready also to make good the past by
repairing any injury he may have done his
neighbor in his character or his property, and
satisfy God in union with the infinite satis-
faction of Jesus Christ by performing the pen-
ance enjoined by his confessor. Otherwise the
mere confession or telling of sin is of no avail
for pardon, the absolution of God's priest is
null and void, and the penitent but adds the
guilt of sacrilege to his original guilt.

Is not confession degrading and opposed to
Christian manliness and independence ?

On the contrary, it is the noblest act of a
true man and a true Christian to conquer his
Iowa: and sinful self by a heartfelt acknowledg-
ment of sins committed- It is indeed humiliat-
ing, but true humility is no degradation, but a
Christ-like virtue: " Learn of Me because I am
meek, and humble of heart' ' (Matt. xi. 29);
especially calculated to conquer the pride of
sin. Suppose you had two boys, who had
seriously violated your commands. One gives
no hint of his disobedience, and the other can-
not retire to rest that night until he has sobbed
out everything. Would you consider this con-
fession degrading? Nay, rather the common
expression is " Own up and be a man." When
a man convicted of murder confesses his crime,

Digitized by

396

The Question Box.

do you consider him less the man, for that
reason ?

The best proof, however, is the fact that
the noblest and most perfect types of men in
the world are those seen frequently at the feet
of a Catholic priest, crying out to God, as the
publican in the Gospel: " O God, be merci-
ful to me a sinner " (Luke xviii. 9-14). The
Saviour indeed praised the humble publican
who confessed, rather than the proud Phari-
see who only boasted of his good deeds. " This
man went down into his house justified rather
than the other/'

I have often heard that Catholics have to pay
money for confession ? Is this true ?

You ought not to believe all that you hear ;
for, as the Scriptures say, "a faithful wit-
ness will not lie, but a deceitful witness utter-
eth a lie" (Prov. xiv. 5). I remember a Prot-
estant in a country town once saying that he
had heard the regular tax for confession was
two dollars. I told him I had in one week
heard upwards of eight hundred confessions
($1,600), which indeed would yield quite a
comfortable income. No ; it is not true, but
a calumny due either to ignorance or malice.
A Protestant gentleman in New York once told
one of the Paulist Fathers that his servant had
demanded money from him more than once to

Digitized by

Penance,

397

pay the priest in confession. "How then,"
says he, " can you deny the fact ? " He never
thought of the alternative, that the servant in
* question simply lied, as he could readily have
found out had he inquired of her whereabouts.
To demand money for confession would be the
grievous sin of simony. The laws of the
Church are most strict on this point, some
bishops even threatening with suspension any
confessor receiving money in the confessional
due for ordinary debts because of the false
impression this might give to non-Catholics.

Why not allow confession to be optional, as in
our (Anglican) Church?

Because, if, as many High-Church Angli-
cans admit, according to the teaching of their
prayer-book in the Communion Service, and
the office for the Visitation of the Sick, Christ
left the power of absolving from sins with His
Church, then Christians by the very fact have
no other way of obtaining forgiveness. Once
an Apostolic body exists in the world whose
pardon of sin on earth means pardon in heaven
by God, and whose retention of sin means re-
tention by God (John xx.), there is no more
possibility of a Christian's being free to reject
this sacrament than he is free to reject the
sacrament of Baptism. The acceptance of the
sacrament of Penance by the High-Church

Digitized by

398 The Question Box.

party rests merely on the Protestant principle
of private judgment, which, exercised by other
members of the same Chnrch, rejects the doc-
trine as contrary to the Word of God.

Do Catholics believe in "conversion," or
"change of heart"?

Conversion with Catholics means:
ist. The conversion from sin, whereby a man
asks God pardon for his offences in the sacra-
ment of Penance, and promises to sin no more ;
and 2d. The conversion from error, whereby a
man renounces a false religion to embrace the
one true Church of Jesus Christ.

Both conversions proceed from man's intel-
lect and will, helped by God's grace to realize
and to reject sin and «rror as hateful in God's
sight.

Catholics do not find any warrant in reason
or Christianity for the emotional conversion of
a Protestant revival, or the superstitious ex-
pectancy of a sudden " change of heart,"
or "getting religion' ' which private judg-
ment has begotten in simple souls, "tossed
to and fro, and carried about with every wind
of doctrine" (Eph. iv. 14). How frequently
infidelity is born of the rational appreciation
that revival religion cannot be of God.

I never could kneel down to a fellow-man and

Digitized by

Penance,

399

tell my sins. That is asking too much of flesh
and blood.

The true Christian should not ask, when
there is question of a doctrine or commandment
of Christ, Is this hard to believe or obey ? but
simply : Did Jesus Christ teach or command it ?

If Jesus Christ established the sacrament of
Penance, and commanded all Christians to
henceforth obtain forgiveness of an Apostolic,
priesthood, who were to pardon until the end
of the world in His name, the faithful soul
should obey Him without question.

Remember, too, that the priest is prepared
after many years of careful study and prayer
for his divine ambassadorship. He has Christ's
example and love for sinners set before him by
men well versed in the spiritual life, so that a
penitent can kneel before him with confidence.
(For an idea of the Catholic priesthood, read
Cardinal Manning's " Eternal Priesthood,"
and Cardinal Gibbons' " Ambassador of
Christ.")

. You find it difficult to kneel down to another
man. Would you expect God to pardon you
without the slightest suffering or mortification ?
Is not the sinner's pride to be cured by the ex-
ercise of the opposite virtue of humility ? It is
hard to acknowledge to a friend that we are in
the wrong, but it is Christian.

We must not, however, exaggerate the diffi-

Digitized by

400

The Question Box.

culty of confession. The sacrament of Penance
is indeed intolerably hard to the hardened
Catholic sinner who does not desire to give up
his wicked life, but it is full of joy and comfort
to the repentant ones, who experience by it the
blessing of the restored friendship of God. It
seems very strange and trying to the non-
Catholic who has never tasted of its divine
sweetness, and yet converts soon learn to love
it. "Father, it is not so hard after all" — so
hundreds have said to me after the indefinable
dread of their first confession was over.

INDULGENCES.

Why does the Catholic priest impose penances
for sins* already pardoned? Why do Catholics
think they can atone for their sins by fasting,
prayers, etc.? Do you believe that you can add
to the all-sufficient atonement of Christ ? When
God forgives the sinner, does He not instantly
free him from all deserved punishment at the
same time, as in the case of the dying thief :
"To-day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise 99
(Luke xxiii. 43) ?

After confession, the penitent is asked to per-
form works of penance that he might better
realize his guilt before God, and thereby pay
the debt of temporal punishment still due to his
forgiven sins. The Council of Trent declares

Digitized by

Indulgences,

that these penances make the sinner more care-
ful for the future, substitute for his vices the
contrary virtues, and prevent him from falling
into more grievous sins (Sess. xiv. ch. viii.)

Frequently the Scriptures declare that God
may lorgive the repentant sinner — that is, free
him from the guilt of sin and its eternal punish-
ment— without freeing him from temporal pun-
ishment. Thus in the case of Adam (Wisdom
x. 2; Gen. iii. 17-20), the rebellious Jews in
the desert (Num. xiv. 20-23), Moses (Num. xx.
12 ; Deut. xxxii. 51, 52), David (II. Kings xi.
xii. xxiv.), etc.

David, for example, having repented for his
murder and adultery, was forgiven by God, and
yet punished by the death of the child he loved.
" I have sinned against the Lord. . . . The
Lord also hath taken away thy sin ; thpu shalt
not die. Nevertheless, because thou hast given
occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blas-
pheme, for this thing the child that is born of
thee shall surely dieM (II. Kings xii. 13, 14).

Is it not strange to find Bible Christians de-
nying that the sinner may atone for the tem-
poral punishment due his sins, when no doc-
trine is taught more clearly in the Scriptures ?
(Jonas iii.; II. Paral. (Chron.) xxxiii. 12, 13;
Ecclus. iii. 33; Dan. iv. 24; Luke xi. 41).

Catholics do not believe that any man or all
men could ever satisfy for one grievous sin

Digitized by

402

The Question Box.

against God. One alone, who was. true God
and true man, Jesus Christ, satisfied for all the
sins of the world. He, according to Catholic
dogma, is the only Mediator ; 14 tor there is one
God, and one Mediator of God and men, the
man Christ Jesus " (I. Tim. iL 5) . But we be-
lieve that by the help of God's grace, which
Jesus Christ died to gain, we can apply to our-
selves the satisfaction of Jesus Christ, through
the sacraments of baptism and penance. This
in no way interferes with the infinite atonement
of God's only Son. " Neither is this satisfac-
tion which we discharge for our sins so much
our own as not to be Jesus Christ's, for we who
can do nothing of ourselves as of ourselves,
can do all things with the co-operation of Him
who strengthens us. Thus man hath not
wherein, to glory, but all our glorying is in
Christ ; in whom we live, in whom we merit, in
whom we satisfy " (Trent., Sess. xiv. ch. viii.)

As for the thief on the cross, it is not evident
that he went instantly to heaven^ for Catholics,
believing that Christ's soul immediately after
His death went down to Limbo, to announce
to the souls there detained the glad tidings of
the redemption (I. Pet. iiL 19), declare that
paradise in this passage does not mean heaven
at all. But granted that it did, a miraHe.
wrought by the Son of God as a sign of His
exceeding great mercy and love for sinners* is

Digitized by

Indulgences, 403

not to be regarded as the general law of God's
working, especially when the Scriptures in
many other passages declare the contrary. Of
cotirse, Catholics telieve that God may at any
time remit the gnilt of sin, and all the punish-
ment dtie thereunto, just as he does always in
baptism ; but we say that is not the ordinary
law of His providence, as taught by His holy
Scriptures and His infallible Church.

How can your Church be God's Church, when
it grants permission or an indulgence to commit
sin?

This old fable of Protestant tradition still
lingers in the mind of many Protestants, al-
though it has been refuted time and time again.
Many will remember how Cardinal Newman
nailed the calumny with regard to the cata-
logue of sins fastened on the door of the Church
of St. Gudule's, Brussels (" Present Posi-
tion of Catholics,'* pp. 108-118). The cata-
logue, written in French, turned out after in-
vestigation to be the price paid, not for sins but
for ike use of chairs. And yet a Catholic law-
yer had but lately to correct the same calumny
repeated by a correspondent of a Chicago daily
with regard to a South American bishop grant-
ing an indulgence to commit sin. So persis-
tent is the unthinking or malicious disregarding
of the eighth commandment.

Digitized by Google

404 The Question Box,

Catholics know that an indulgence is in no
sense whatever the remission of sin past, pres-
ent, or future, nor does it do away with the
eternal punishment due to sin. The most ele-
mental concept of God renders it impossible to
imagine Him giving a person permission to
commit sin. If our objector would take the
trouble to read any catechism of our Church
he would find it clearly stated, that unless a
Catholic is free from mortal sin and in God's
grace and friendship, he cannot in the slightest
degree gain an indulgence (" Baltimore Cate-
chism,' ' lesson xxi. questions i and 2).

An indulgence is the remission by the Church
of the whole or part of the temporal punish-
ment due to sin, valid before God because of
the divine authority Christ gave His Church
(Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). It is gained only
by one in a state of grace, in virtue of the ap-
plication of the superabundant merits of Christ
and His saints to all of the Communion of
Saints.

Thus, in the first days of Christianity, the
Church imposed upon repentant sinners severe
public penances, such as exclusion from the
church service, denial of the Eucharist, fasting
on bread and water for a term of years, for the
grievous crimes of murder, apostasy, surren-
dering the Bible to the pagan persecutors, and
the like. We read, however, that frequently

Digitized by

Indulgences.

405

the bishops remitted, wholly or partially, these
penitential works, if a penitent manifested ex-
traordinary sorrow, if a persecution was immi-
nent, if one of the martyrs about to die re-
quested it, if the penitent was unable to under-
go the penance because of bodily infirmities, or
if death were imminent. This is essentially the
Catholic doctrine of indulgences to-day.

From the eighth century this public peniten-
tial discipline was gradually done away with,
until it disappeared in the thirteenth
century. Penitents who manifested sincere
sorrow were absolved before the penance en-
joined was performed. The severe public pen-
ances were commuted into prayers, almsgiving
to churches, monasteries, and hospitals, pil-
grimages, taking the cross to free Chrises sep-
ulchre from the Saracen (Council of Clermont,
a. d. 1098, can. 2), making the Jubilee (a. d.
1300), etc.

This divine power exercised by the Catholic
Church with regard to the temporal punish-
ment decreed by divine law to the sinner, is
somewhat akin to the power which every well-
ordered state exercises for the common good of
society, by remitting wholly or in part the pun-
ishment decreed by the civil law to the crimi-
nal. Thus our President, or governor, has in
certain cases the right to grant a complete par-
don to criminals by law condemned to life im-

Digitized by

406 The Question Box.

prisonment. And in every prison we find the
State remitting part of a criminal's sentence for
good behavior.

Just as the State possesses the right to con-
demn or acquit the criminal, and to regulate in
every way the punishment due his crime, so the
Catholic Church possesses the divine right to
pardon sin or retain it (John xx.), and to remit
wholly or in part the punishment it deserves in
the sight of God (Matt. xvL 19, xviii. 18), — all
according to the penitent's interior dispositions
towards God. (Lepicier, 1 * Indulgences ' ' ;
Thurston, " The Holy Year " ; Bellarmin, " De
Indulgentiis " ; Beringer, " Indulgences.,,)

Where in the Bible are indulgences mentioned ?

Did not the doctrine of indulgences originate in
the year 1200?

By what authority does your Church grant in-
dulgences ?

By the divine power that Jesus Christ gave
to Peter and the Apostles in union with Him
to free the repentant sinner from everything
that hindered his entrance into heaven, namely,
sin and the eternal and temporal punishment
due to sin.

* * Whatsoever thou shalt loose pn earth,
it shall be loosed also in heaven " (Matt. xvi.
19); "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth
shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt, xviii.

Digitized by

Indulgences.

407

18) ; " Whose sins you shall forgive, they are
forgiven them" (John xx. 23).

St. Paul exercised this power upon the in-
cestuous Corinthian, whom he first excom-
municated and then pardoned in the name of
Christ after he had given proof of heartfelt
sorrow. 1 i I indeed, absent in body, but pres-
ent in spirit, have already judged ... to
deliver such a one to Satan for the destruc-
tion of the flesh/ ' etc. (I. Cor. v. 3-5). " So
that, on the contrary, you should rather forgive
him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one
b& swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. . . .
What I have pardoned, if I have pardoned
anything, for your sakes I have done it in the
person of Christ " (II. Cor. ii. 6-10). Catho-
lics believe that many members of the Church
— for instance, virgins, martyrs, confessors, and
countless saints — have performed penances far
exceeding what was due their sins, and that
their merits in union with the infinite merits
of Jesus Christ form a spiritual treasury, which
the Apostles and their successors can draw
from to pay the debt of temporal punishment
for all who belong to the Communion of
Saints.

" For as the body is one, and hath many
members ; and all the members of the body,
whereas they are many, yet are one body, so
also is Christ ; . . . and if one member

Digitized by

4<~>8 The Question Box,

suffer anything, all the members suffer with
it ; or if one member glory, all the members re-
joice with it" (I. Cor. xii. 12-26).

To me indulgences are destructive of true re-
ligion, by freeing one from the necessity of re-
pentance (Luke xiii. 5).

Do not indulgences make Catholics trust too
much in externals, set prayers, visiting churches,
processions, etc.f

Why should not a man suffer all the punish-
ment due his sins?

Inasmuch as indulgences necessarily sup-
pose on a sinner's part heartfelt, sorrowful con-
fession of all his grievous sins, and his resto-
ration to God's grace and friendship, they can-
not help fostering true love of Jesus Christ.

By what right does a man judge his neigh-
bor guilty of externalism, or Pharisaism, when
he prays to God, fasts in obedience to Christ's
word and the law of His Church, or visits
Jesus Christ really present on the Catholic
altar ?

A true Christian, realizing the infinite malice
of sin and God's offended justice, is thankful
not only for Christ's institution of the sacra-
ment of Penance for the pardon of grievous
sin and the remission of the eternal punish-
ment it deserves, but also for that extra-sac-
ramental remission of the temporal punish-

Digitized by

Indulgences,

409

ment which, according to the Scriptures, may
remain even after the eternal punishment is re-
mitted.

I have frequently met non-Catholics who in
one breath found fault with the dogma of in-
dulgences as not allowing full scope to God's
justice, and in the next not scrupling at all to
declare eternal punishment incompatible with
God's 'mercy. Is not this straining at a gnat
and swallowing a camel? (Matt, xxiii. 24).

Indulgences, as a matter of fact, are great
helps to true devotion, for they foster the spirit
of prayer, encourage almsgiving in the name of
Christ (Luke xi. 41, xii. 33; Matt. vi. 2),
cause Catholics to meditate upon the Passion
and death of Christ through whose infinite
merits they avail, insist on the reception of
those wonderful helps to God's love and friend-
ship, the sacraments of penance and the Euchar-
ist, bring vividly before men the dogma of the
Communion of Saints, etc.

Were not indulgences sold by the Catholic
Church at the time of the Reformation?

Are not pardons bought for money in your
Church ?

I have heard it said that in South America
absolution can be had beforehand for the most out-
rageous crime, if one will only pay the price re-
quired.

Digitized by

The Question Box.

"It is utterly false to' assert that it has ever
been held in the Catholic Church that the
perpetration of crime could be indulged for any
sum of money. Neither for sins committed,
nor sins to come, has money ever been taken as
an equivalent ; for one no more than the other.
On the other hand, it is quite true that the in-
jury done to the Church, when it happens to
be visited with a censure (which is not a com-
mon case), has certainly sometimes been com-
pensated by the performance of some good
work, and in the number of such works alms-
deeds and religious offerings are included' '
(Newman, " Present Position of Catholics,' y
Lecture iii. p. 13).

We have stated elsewhere that the ordinary
Protestant notion of an indulgence being a
pardon for sin is absolutely false, although to
our shame be it said we find this calumny
voiced by some of the teachers paid by the
state to instruct our children in our high and
normal schools. The sacrament of Penance is
alone concerned with the pardon of sin, and in
that sacrament no money is or can be paid.
An indulgence has to do merely with the re-
mission of the temporal punishment of the sin-
ner already pardoned by the sacrament of Pen-
ance, and can never be purchased.

When a non-Catholic remembers that a
heartfelt supernatural sorrow for all grievous

Digitized by

Indulgences, 411

sin, with a firm purpose to offend God no more,
is an absolute prerequisite for gaining an indul-
gence, how, believing in the Scriptures, can
he find fault with the Catholic Church for
promising the remission of temporal punish-
ment as a reward for good works — among which
is almsgiving in the name of Christ — per-
formed by those in God's grace and friendship.

Christ told U£ that the giving of a cup of
cold water in His name would not be without
a reward (Mark ix. 40). How then can a Chris-
tian find fault with Pope Leo X., who in the
sixteenth century, by his apostolic power
granted, as many Popes and Bishops for hun-
dreds of years had done before him, not the
pardon of sin, but the remission of temporal
punishment due to those repentant sinners who
would give an alms towards the building of
one of the greatest temples ever erected in
honor of Jesus Christ. Pope Leo, the Vicar
of Jesus Christ, had the same right as Moses
in the Old Law, who in God's name demanded
from the Jews offerings of gold, silver, brass,
precious stones, oil, spices, for the taber-
nacle.

The Catholic Church has never denied that
abuses have existed; that over-zeal led some
preachers of indulgences to go beyond the
teaching of the Church, or engage in some per-
sonal trafficking. What thing holy or sacred

Digitized by

412 The Question Box.

in the world but the avarice of men can put a
price on it ? Women have sold their honor for
money, fathers have sold their daughters in
marriage, respectable Christians have trafficked
in human flesh without blushing, men have
betrayed their country for a price, legislatures,
judges, jurors, voters have been frequently
bought up. What then? Would you abolish
the jury-system or the ballot, or condemn mat-
rimony, because of the evils of avarice inci-
dent thereto?

Various Popes, from Gregory VII. in the
eleventh century to Leo X. in the sixteenth,
and many councils (2d Lateran, A. d. 1139 ; 1st
Lyons, a.d. 1245 ; Vienne, a.d. 1311, and Trent,
a.d. 1 545-1 563) have condemned these abuses.
The Council of Trent (Sess. xxv.) : " Being
desirous that the abuses which have crept in,
and by occasion of which the excellent name,
of indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be
amended and corrected, ordains . . . that
all evil gains for the obtaining thereof — whence
a most prolific cause of abuses among the Chris-
tian people has been derived — be wholly abol-
ished:'

If Luther had merely protested against these
abuses as was his right, he would only have
been following in the footsteps of Popes, Bish-
ops, and Councils. But to deny the dogma
because of these abuses, is about as sensible as

Digitized by

Indulgences. 413

to advocate free love because of the sad abuses
of the marriage bond so prevalent to-day. That
he was most oblivious to the nature, condi-
tions, and effects of indulgences his ninety-
five propositions give ample proof, even if we
did not have his own word for it.

The statement frequently made that Tetzel
promised indulgences without requiring con-
trition is absolutely without proof, and his sup-
posed ignorance of the true Catholic doctrine
is amply refuted by his answer to I^uther " On
Indulgences and Grace/ ' and his defence of
one hundred and six theses against I/Uther on
the occasion of his taking his licentiate in theo-
logy at the University of Frankfort, a.d. 1517.
(\* Tetzel und lather," Grone.)

Does not an indulgence of one hundred days
mean that, by certain prayers recited by the sin-
ner, one hundred days of his punishment in pur-
gatory are taken off? How do you know what
happens in the other world ?

Not at all ; for the Church does not pretend
to know how much of Purgatory God remits by
a partial indulgence of so many days, years,
etc.

Historically, the phrase arose in reference to
the canonical penances of the early Church
which were imposed for certain fixed periods.
Catholics believe that by the gaining of what
is called " an indulgence of one hundred days,"

Digitized by

4H

Tke Question Bon.

the repentant sinner does as much toward the
remission of the temporal punishment due by
God to his sins as was done in former times by
the performance of one hundred days of public
penance.

This historical formula is still retained to re-
mind the Christians of to-day how strongly the
early Church realized the malice of offences
against God, that they the more readily might
do the little required of them in atonement for
their sins.

How can indulgences avail for the dead whose
dispositions cannot be known? .

The Catholic Church does not claim to di-
rectly apply the infinite merits of Jesus Christ
and the superabundant merits of His saints
to the souls in Purgatory, over whom she has
no jurisdiction. She can only offer these merits
to God by way of suffrage, and leave the ap-
plication entirely to His good pleasure. Thus,
a Catholic may gain a plenary indulgence and
offer it up for a particular soul in Purgatory ;
but God is not pledged to apply it, and it by
no means follows that this soul is at once
ushered into the presence of God. This seems,
however, to be the ordinary Protestant notion,
although it was expressly condemned by the
Church in the Council of Vienne, a.d. 131 i.

Digitized by

Indulgences. 4 1 5

Cannot God apply the infinite satisfactions of
Jesus Christ without the means of indulgences ?

God can, if He so will, remit the guilt of
sin, and both its eternal and temporal punish-
ment'directly and immediately. But the ordi-
nary way He established in His Church is the
sacrament of Penance for the guilt of sin and
the eternal punishment, and indulgences for the
remission of the temporal punishment.

What do you mean by a Jubilee?

The Jubilee (Lev. xxv. ), or Holy Year, is
an institution originating with Pope Boniface
VIII. in the year 1300. It consists of a uni-
versal plenary indulgence, or remission of all
temporal punishments, to those who, ' * truly
penitent and having confessed and communi-
cated, shall piously visit the Basilicas of the
Blessed Peter and Paul, St. John Lateran,
and St. Mary Major" (Bull of Leo XIII.,
Properante ad exitum, 1899). The extended
Jubilee, which dates from the time of Alex-
ander VI., grants the same privilege to the
Catholics of the world who are unable to visit
Rome. (For a complete history of the Jubilee
see Herbert Thurston, S.J., "The Holy Year
of Jubilee. M Herder, 1900.)

Digitized by

4i6

The Question Box.

THE HOLY EUCHARIST.

How can you believe that the wafer given in
Communion is Christ the Lord?

We believe *it on the words of Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, who promised to give us His
flesh to eat and His blood to drink, at the lake-
side of Galilee (John vi. 48-69), and who ful-
filled that promise at the Last Supper (Matt,
xxvi. 26-28 ; Mark xiv. 22-24 \ Luke xxii. 19,
20; I. Cor-, xi. 23-25). We have also the
divine infallible testimony of the Catholic
Church He established. "The Holy Synod
(the Council of Trent) teacheth ... . that
in . the august sacrament of the Holy Euchar-
ist, after the consecration of the bread and
wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man,
is truly, really, and substantially contained un-
det the appearances of those visible signs M
(Sess. xiii. ch. i. ; Wiseman's " Lectures on the
Real Presence" ; Faber, "The Blessed Sac-
rament"; Dalgairps, "The Holy Commu-
nion ").

What do you mean by transubstantiation ?
Is it not a new teaching of the Council of
Trent ?

The Council of Trent says (Sess. xiii. ch.
iv.) "that by the consecration of the bread
and wine a change is wrought of the bread's

Digitized by

The Holy Eucharist.

417

whole substance into the substance of Christ
our Lord's Body, and of the wine's whole sub-
stance into the substance of His Blood, which
change has been by the Holy Catholic Church
suitably and properly called Transubstantia-
tion."

By the substance of bread we mean its very
essence, that internal, invisible something
which, itself devoid of color, shape, weight,
taste, etc., supports the qualities or accidents
which are perceived by the senses.

Transubstantiation, therefore, means that
when Jesus Christ, at the Last Supper, pro-
nounced the words " This is My Body; this is
My Blood/ ' the Son of God by His omnipo-
tent power transubstantiated, or changed, the
substance of the bread and wine into His living
flesh ; so that no bread or wine whatsoever re-
mained, but Himself— Body, Blood, Soul, and
Divinity, under their appearances. So in like
manner, every day at Mass, the priest, acting
in the Name of Christ, pronounces the same
words, and God effects the same change.

This is by no means a new teaching, but the
clear, obvious interpretation of the words of
the Saviour (Matt. xxvi. 26, etc.) When Christ
took bread into His hands He did not say
"This is a figure of My Body," "In this
bread is My Body eaten by faith,' ' " In, with,
or under this is My Body," as he ought to

Digitized by

4i8

The Question Box.

have said if our Lutheran or other Protestant
brethren are right, but merely, This is My
Body. What He held could not be bread and
His Body at the same time ; and as there was
no change in the appearances of bread, the
change must have taken place in the invisible
substance — that is, by transubstantiation.'

The doctrine of the early Fathers may be
studied in " Faith of Catholics," vol. ii. pp.
191-374; "Manual of Theology," Wilhelm-
Scannell, pp. 417, 418. They clearly taught
transubstantiation, although the word itself is
not older than the eleventh century. A word
often becomes the test of orthodoxy, as ombou-
sios against the Arians, or theoticos against the
Nestorians. I give one testimony of the fourth
century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem : " What seems
bread is not bread, though it seems so 'to the
taste, but Christ's Body ; what seems wine is
not wine, even though the taste will have it so,
but Christ's Blood" (Catech. iv. 9).

The fact that the Council of Trent first de-
fined the way in which Christ was present in
the Eucharist, no more makes this a new teach-
ing than the several definitions regarding the
Incarnation and Trinity in the early Church,
which defined these dogmas more clearly as
various errors of Arianism, Nestorianism,
Macedonianism, etc., arose concerning them.

Digitized by

The Holy Eucharist,

419

Ought not the sixth chapter of St. John's Gos-
pel to be interpreted figuratively ?

Does not the phrase "to eat the flesh " sig-
i nify to believe in the doctrine of Christ ?

Let us consider the whole passage, John vi.
48-70 :

" I am the Bread of Life. Your fathers did
eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is
the bread which cometh down from heaven ;
that if any man eat of it he may not die. I am
the living bread which came down from heaven.
If any man eat of this bread he shall live for
ever ; and the bread that I will give is My flesh
for the life of the world. The Jews, therefore,
strove among themselves, saying: How can this
man give us His flesh to eat ? Then Jesus said
to them : Amen, amen, I say unto you : Except
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink
His Blood, you shall not have life in you. He
that eateth My flesh and drinketh My Blood,
hath everlasting life, and I will raise him upv in
the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed ;
and My Blood is drink indeed. He that eateth
My flesh and drinketh My Blood abideth in Me
and I in him. As the living Father hath sent
Me, and I live by the Father : so he that eateth
Me, the same also shall live by Me. This
is the bread that came down from heaven.
Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are
dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for

Digitized by

420

The Question Box,

ever. These things He said, teaching in the
synagogue in Capharnaum. Many therefore of
His disciples hearing it, said : This saying is
hard, and who can hear it ? But Jesus know-
ing in Himself, that His disciples murmured at
this, said to them : Doth this scandalize you ?
If then you shall see the Son of Man ascend
up where He was before ? It is the Spirit that
quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing ; the
words that I have spoken to you are spirit and
life. But there are some of you that believe
not. . . . After this many of His disciples
went back, and walked no more with Him.
Then Jesus said to the twelve : Will you also
go away ? And Simon Peter answered Him :
Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the
words of eternal life. And we have believed,
and have known, that Thou art the Christ the
Son of God."

This question is fully answered by Cardinal
Wiseman in his lectures on the Real Presence
(Lectures i.-iv.) His arguments are as follows :

i. " I assert, therefore, that if we accurately
consider the phraseology of this portion of the
chapter (from verse 48 to the end), according to
the only manner in which it could possibly be
understood by the Jews whom Christ addressed,
we must conclude that they would necessarily
infer a change of topic in it, and be convinced
that the doctrine now delivered was of a real

Digitized by

The Holy Eucharist.

421

eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of
IJim who addressed them M (p. 69, lecture ii.)

2. In every language, ancient or modern, a
figure of speech has a definite meaning. If,
for instance, I call a man a fox, I refer to his
cunning ; if a lion, to his bravery, and the like.
We cannot use figures of speech arbitrarily,
and give them at will a new meaning, merely to
meet the demands of controversy. * ' If I dis-
cover/' argues Cardinal Wiseman, " that
among the persons whom Jesus addressed, it
{that is, the phrase to eat flesh) did bear a
figurative signification besides its literal sense,
then I must conclude that those persons could
only select between that established figurative
j^^andthe literal import of the words" (p.
77). . . . "Now I do assert that whether
we examine (a) the phraseology of the Bible
(Ps. xxvi. 2, Job. xix. 22, Mich. iii. 3, Ec-
cles. iv. 5, Gal. v. 15), (b) the ordinary lan-
guage of the people who still inhabit the same
country, and have inherited the same ideas
(i. e.9 the Arabs), or (c)t in fine, the very
language in which our Saviour addressed the
Jews (Syro-Chaldaic), we shall find the ex-
pression to eat the flesh of a person signifying
invariably, when used metaphorically, to at-
tempt to do him some serious injury^ prin*
tipally by calumny or false accusation. Such,
therefore, was the only figurative meaning

Digitized by

422 The Question Box.

which the phrase could present to the audience
at Capharnaum " (p. 80; cf. pp. 80-91).

3. As no one would ever imagine that Christ
could promise eternal life on condition of our
calumniating Him, there remains but one pos-
sible sense of the words — the literal. "The
ideas of drinking blood and eating human flesh
presented something so frightful to a Jew, that
we cannot allow our Saviour, if a sincere
teacher, to have used them as images, for con-
soling and cheering doctrines ; nor in fact to
have used them at all, under any other circum-
stances than an absolute necessity of recur-
ring to them, as the most literal method of
representing his doctrines' ' (p. 106).

The Old Law expressly forbade the drinking
of blood (Gen. ix. 4; Lev. iii. 17, vii. 26,
xix. 26; Deut. xii. 16, xv. 23), so that the
Jews ever regarded it as a heinous crime (Lev.
xvii. 10 ; I. Kings xiv. 33 ; Ezech. xxxiii. 25 ;
Judith xi. 10-12); it is frequently mentioned
as the most dreadful curse of God upon His
enemies (Wisdom xi. 7 ; Isa. xlix. 26 ; Apoc.
xvi. 6 ; Jer. xix. 8, 9. Lecture iii. pp. 104-1 10).

4. It is clear that the Jews understood our
Saviour's words literally, for they question
the possibility of their eating His flesh : 4 ' How
can this man give us His flesh to eat " (verse
53). Were they right or wrong? To deter-
mine this, Cardinal Wiseman lays down two

Digitized by

The Holy Eucharist, 423

rules gathered from the constant practice of
Jesus Christ in teaching His doctrine to the
people.

" Whenever our Lord's hearers found dif-
ficulties, or raised objections to His words,
from taking them in their literal sense, when
He intended them to be taken figuratively, His
constant practice was to explain them instantly
in a figurative manner, even though no great
error could result from their being misunder-
stood " (pp. 116, 117). For example :

' * Jesus answered and said to him (Nico-
demus) : Amen, Amen, I say to thee, unless
a man be born again, he cannot see the king-
dom of God. Nicodemus saith to Him : How
can a man be born when he is old? " Jesus at
once explains His meaning : " Amen, Amen, I
say to thee, unless a man be born again of
water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into
the kingdom of God* ' (John iii. 3-5). And
again : " It is easier for a camel to pass through
the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter
into the kingdom of heaven ? 99 The disciples
believe that He means no rich man can be saved :
* 1 Who then can be saved ? ' ' Jesus at once
corrects this false impression, saying: " With
man this is impossible, but with God all things
are possible' 9 (Matt. xix. 24-26. Compare
also Matt. xvi. 6-12 ; John iv. 32-34 ; John xL
11-14, viii. 21-23, 32-34, 39-44).

Digitized by GooQLe'

424

The Question Box.

"When His words were rightly under-
stood in their literal sense, and by that correct
interpretation gave rise to murmurs or objec-
tions, it was His custom to stand to His words
and repeat again the very sentiment which had
given the offence.' ' Thus :

(a) Jesus ' ' said to the man sick of the palsy :
Be of good heart, Son; thy sins are forgiven
thee." The Scribes, understanding the words
aright, object, * ' saying within themselves: He
blasphemeth. ' ' Our Saviour then reiterates His
teaching : * ' Whether it is easier to say, Thy
sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Arise and
walk ? But that you may know that the Son
of man hath power on earth to forgive sins,"
etc. (Matt. ix. 2-7). (b) "Abraham your
father rejoiced that he might see my day : he
saw it, and was glad." The Jews understood
Him to claim to have lived in Abraham's time.
"Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast
Thou seen Abraham ? " Jesus reiterates clear-
ly the self-same teaching : "Amen, amen, I say
to you, before Abraham was made, I am " (John
viii. 56-58).

If we now consider the words in John vi., we
see that our Lord repeats the teaching of verse
52 in the six following verses, declaring that to
eat His flesh and to drink His blood is a pre-
cept, a pledge of everlasting life, a true eating
and drinking, a means of intimate union with

Digitized by

The Holy Eucharist.

425

.Himself, a proof of supernatural life, and an
earnest of immortality (w. 54-59). (Lecture
iii. pp. 112-127.)

5. Another strong argument for our Lord's
literal meaning is the following:

(a) Verse 54 — " Amen, amen, I say to you,
except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man
and drink His blood, you shall not have life
in you" — expresses a precept, in the strong-
est possible way, both negative and posi-
tive (compare with Mark xvi. 16: " He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but
he that believeth not shall be condemned ").
Understood figuratively, this precept would be
utterly unintelligible to His Jewish hearers.
(£) The distinction made by our Saviour be-
tween eating His body and drinking His blood
is without any real significance unless He is
speaking of the Real Presence ; for to partake
of the blood of Christ by faith adds nothing
to the idea of partaking of His body, (c) The
" Amen, Amen" (v. 54) of our Saviour is evi-
dently intended as a strong emphatic statement,
which in the Protestant interpretation would be-
token insincerity on His part, (d) In verse 56,
Jesus assures the Jews that His flesh is truly
meat and His blood is truly drink. We cannot
imagine Him making such an answer, if they
were wrong in understanding Him literally.
(e) His reply, instead of removing their previ-

Digitized by

426.

The Question Box.

ous difficulties, confirmed them, for we read :
" Many therefore of His disciples, hearing it,
said: This saying is hard" — i.e., harsh or re-
volting, and who can hear it ; that is, who can
bear to listen to it ? These words are utterly
without meaning if we accept Jthe Protestant
idea of an eating by faith. (/) Seeing that the
disciples objected still, He appeals to the strik-
ing miracle of His future ascension (w. 62, .63)
as proof positive of His words, even as He ap-
pealed to His second coming as proof of His
divinity before the High-Priest at His trial
(Matt. xxvi. 63, 64). Is it probable that if

He did not wish His words to be taken literally
-He would have allowed the unbelieving dis-
ciples to depart without explaining His mean-
ing ? For we read : * * After this many of His
disciples went back, and walked no more with
Him" (v. 67).

(6) Finally His words to the twelve, " Will
you also go away?" and St. Peter's answer:
" Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the
words of eternal life " (vv. 68, 69), clearly prove
that they really understood Him literally, and
that they accepted without question His teach-
ing on His word as the Son of God, although
they did not comprehend the mystery (Lecture
iv. pp. 154-155).

A careful study of all these arguments, to-
gether with the fact that the figurative inter-

Digitized by Google

The Holy Eupharist. • 427

pretation is a modern one of the sixteenth cen-
tury, ought to convince any earnest, prayerful
student of the Sacred Scriptures that our Lord
spoke ot a real eating and drinking of His
Body and Blood in His sermon at the syna-
gogue at Capharnaum.

Does not Jesus plainly indicate that He speaks
in figure by the words : " It is the Spirit that
quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing; the
words that I speak to you, they are spirit and
they are life" (John vi. 64).

Cardinal Wiseman (Lecture iv. pp. 175-177)
thus answers this commonplace of controversy,
although most learned Protestant commentators
agree with us in rejecting the interpretation
of our questioner (as, Kuinoel, Bloomfield,
Schleusner, Horne, Koppe, Sartorius, Storr,
Schmid, Roller).

1. There is not a single instance in the Old
or New Testament in which the word flesh is
used to denote the literal sense of words. Yet
this is necessary, if by the word spirit their
figurative or spiritual signification is here de-
noted.

2. " If by the flesh we are to understand the
» material flesh of Christ, by the spirit we must

understand His spirit. If so, in what way does
the phrase explain that the foregoing words
are to be taken figuratively ?' '

Digitized by

428 The Question Box.

3. " The , terms flesh and spirit \ when opposed
to each other in the New Testament, have a
definite meaning which never varies." . . .
Then, citing as examples Rom. viii. 1-14, the
cardinal continues : "From this passage, were
others wanting, it would be clear that the flesh
signifies the corrupted dispositions and weak
thoughts of human nature; and the spirit
means the sentiment of man as elevated and
ennobled by grace. . . . Christ's words
then are, spirit and life; ... in other
words, such as the mere man cannot receive,
but which require a strong power of grace to
make them acceptable. (Compare Gal. v. 13-
26 ; I. Pet. iv. 6 ; Matt. xxvi. 41 ; John iii. 6 ;
Rom. vii. 5, 6, 25 ; I. Cor. v. 5 ; II. Cor. vii.
1 ; Gal. iii. 3, iv. 29 ; I. Pet. iii. 18, etc.)

Ought not the words of Christ at the Last Sup-
per (Matt. xxvi. 28) be understood in a figura-
tive sense?

But carefully consider them :

Matt. xxvi. 26-28: "And whilst they were
at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and
broke, and gave to His disciples, and said:
Take ye and eat, This is My Body. And tak-
ing the chalice He gave thanks, and gave to
them, saying : Drink ye all of this, For this is
My Blood of the New Testament, which shall
be shed for many unto the remission of sins."

Digitized by

The Holy Eucharist.

429

Mark xiv. 22-24: "And whilst they were
eating, Jesus took bread ; and blessing, broke,
and gave to them and said : Take ye, This is
My Body. And having taken the chalice, giv-
ing thanks, He gave it to them. And they
all drank of it. And He said to them : This
is My Blood of the New Testament, which
shall be shed for many."

Luke xxii. 19-20 : " And taking bread, He
gave thanks and brake, and gave to them, say-
ing : This is My Body, which is given for you.
Do this for a commemoration of Me. In like
manner the chalice also after He had supped,
saying : 7 his is the Chalice, the New Testament
in My Blood, which shall be shed for you."

I. Cor. xi. 23-25 : " The Lord Jesus ...
took bread, and giving thanks, broke and
said : Take ye and eat : This is My Body,
which shall be delivered for you; this do for
the commemoration of Me. In like manner
also the Chalice, after He had supped, saying :
This Chalice is the New Testament in My Blood ;
this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the
commemoration of Me." (Cf. Lecture v., On
the Real Presence, p. 189 et seq.)

St. Cyril answered this objection in the
fourth century : " Since Christ Himself affirms
thus of the bread, 7 his is My Body, who is so
daring as to doubt it ? And since He affirms,
This is My Blood, who will deny that it is His

Digitized by

430 The Question Box.

Blood ? At Cana of Galilee He, by an act of
His will, turned water into wine, which re-
sembles blood; and is He not then to be
credited when He changes wine into Blood ?
Therefore, full of certainty, let us receive the
Body and Blood of Christ ; for, under the form
of bread, is given to thee His Body, * and under
the form of wine His Blood' ' (Catech. Mys-
tagog., 4, i, 2).

The words of St. Luke are most clear (xxii.
19, 20) : This is My Body now given for
you — that is, the very Body that was to be
offered on the cross ; this is My Blood now
shed for you — that is, the very blood that was
to flow from His Sacred Heart. When, there-
fore, a Protestant interprets these simple words
of our Saviour, " This is My Body — this is My
Blood/ ' to mean this is a figure or symbol of
My Body and Blood, He must show some valid
reason for denying the Lord's statement of the
Catholic Doctrine of the Real Presence.

That was no time to speak in misleading
figures of speech, for our Lord was making His
Last Testament, and instituting a sacrament and
a sacrifice which would last until His second
coming (Luke xxii. 19; I. Cor. xi. 26). v Would
He, the Infinite Wisdom, and the Lover of souls,
use words which were calculated to deceive the
greater number of His people for all time, and
lead them into the idolatry He came expressly

Digitized by

The Holy- Eucharist. 431

to abolish ? Shall Christians hesitate between
the " black or white spirit" that told the
figurative meaning to Ulrich Zwingli in a
dream, and the constant voice of Eastern and
Western Christendom from the beginning ?

The literal interpretation of the words of
Christ is also plainly taught a second time by
St. Paul : " The Chalice of Benediction which
we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood
of Christ ? And the bread which we break,
is it not the partaking of the Body of the
Lord?" (I. Cor. x. 16).

The word "partaking" used several times
in the following verses (18, 20, 21) refers to a
real sharing in the sacrifices of the pagans ;
why then, in verse 16, should it not refer to
a real partaking of the Body of the Lord ?

I. Cor. xi. 27-29 is even more explicit :
" Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or
drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall
be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the
Lord. But let a man prove himself; and so
let Him eat of that bread, and drink of the
chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh un-
worthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to
himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord."

"Plain and simple reason," says Cardinal
Wiseman* * ' seems to tell us that the presence
of Christ's Body' is necessary for an offence
committed against it. A man cannot be * guilty

Digitized by

432

The Question Box,

of majesty,' unless the majesty exists in the
object against which his crime is committed.
In like manner, an offender against the Blessed
Eucharist cannot be described as guilty of
Christ's Body and Blood if these be not in the
sacrament " (Lectures on the Eucharist, pp.
3i8, 319).

Again, if Christ is not really present, how
can the Apostle denounce the unprepared com-
municant as guilty of grievous sin for " not
discerning the Body of the Lord?"

Does not the word " to be 99 frequently mean to
represent ? Why not in the words of Christ at the
Last Supper ? " The seven good kine are seven
years 99 (Gen. xli. 26), " The ten horns . . .
are the ten kings 99 (Dan. vii. 24), " The field is
the world99 (Matt. xiii. 38), "That rock was
Christ 99 (I. Cor. x. 4), " The seven stars are the
angels of the seven churches 99 (Rev. i. 20),
" These (they) are the two covenants99 (Gal. iv.
24.)

1 . The passages above cited are Jby no means
parallel to the words of the institution of the
Eucharist : This is My Body ; This is My Blood.

2. If there are some few passages of Holy
Writ where to be means to represent^ there are
thousands of others where the verb to be is to
be taken literally.

3. According to this argument, the words of

Digitized by

The Holy Eucharist, 433

St. John (i. 1) " The Word was God" should
mean " the word represented God " — a reductio
ad absurdum evident to any Protestant Bible
student who believes in the Divinity of Christ.

4. These texts are not parallel passages, for
they all refer to the explanation of a symbol \ and
not to the institution of one. It is not the
recurrence of the same word but of the same
thing that constitutes a parallelism.

The context clearly shows that in the cases
cited there is question of a vision, a parable,
an allegory, or a metaphor : Gen. xli. 25 :
"the dream of Pharao is one," etc. Dan. vii.
15: "the visions of my head troubled me."
Matt. xiii. 36 : " Declare unto lis the parable of
the tares." I. Cor. x. 4 : " They drank of the
spiritual rock." Apoc. i. 20 : " The mystety"
i. e., allegory or symbol, "of the seven stars."
Gal. iv. 24: " Which things are an allegory"

5. All these texts differ in point of con-
struction from " This is My Body." In each a
definite subject is said to be something else,
and as we know that two material objects can-
not be identical, we are obliged to look for a
figurative meaning (Wiseman's Lectures on the
Real Presence, Lecture v. pp. 206-222).

Does not the verb " to be " mean to represent,
in this text, "It is the Lord's passover" ?
(Exod. xii. ii).

Digitized by

434 The Question Box.

Not at all, although * ' the black or white
spirit" told Ulrich Zwingli in a dream that
this text alone was conclusive against a literal
interpretation of " This is My Body." The
original reads : "the passover to the Lord" ;
that is, a sacred thing to the Lord. This is
proven conclusively by verse 27 of the same
chapter : ' ' this is to the Lord the sacrifice of the
passover." Here the paschal feast is spoken of
not as any emblem of the Lord's passover, but
as its sacrifice ; and the thing so spoken of is
said to be sacred to the Lord. The verb which
expresses this idea must necessarily be taken
in its own strict sense. In the other passage,
therefore, in which the same thing is spoken of,
and the same construction employed, we must
conclude that the word has the same mean-
ing; this is the paschal feast sacred to the
Lord (Wiseman, Lecture v. p. 235). It is
interesting to note that the original does not
contain the words to be at all.

Does not Christ say of Himself figuratively :
" I am the door 99 (John x. 9), "I am the true
vine" (John xv. 1)? Might He not therefore
call the Eucharist His body only in figure?

The texts are by no means parallel, for:
1 . To be here does not mean to represent, for
our Lord did not intend to make Himself the
symbol or figure of material objects. He evi-

Digitized by

The Holy Eucharist. 435

dently meant by the two comparisons to show
that He resembled a door inasmuch as all must
have access to the Father through Him, — " By
Me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved,'' —
or that He was like a vine to which they by
grace were united as branches (John xv. 1-6).
The context in both cases makes our Lord's
figurative meaning perfectly evident. 2. The
fact again of identity being predicated of two
different objects (Christ and a door, Christ and
a vine) forbids any one thinking for a moment
of a literal interpretation (Lecture v. pp. 222-
225).

Is not the doctrine of the Real Presence impos-
sible ? How can the Eternal God be contained in
the wafer Catholics receive?

The Blessed Eucharist is a dogma full of
mystery, but it involves no contradiction or
absurdity, and is no more impossible than any
other of the mysteries of Christianity.

If God can create the universe out of nothing,
why cannot He change the substance of bread
and wine into the substance of the Body and
Blood of Jesus Christ ?

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, taught this
doctrine, and ' ' with God all things are possi-
ble' ' (Matt. xix. 26).

The true follower of Christ does not ask
"how," with the unbelieving Jew (John vi. 53),

Digitized by

436

The Question Box.

but says with the Apostle Peter, who did not
comprehend the mystery of the Real Presence,
but accepted it on the divine word of the
Saviour : "* Thou hast the words of eternal life.
And we have believed and known that Thou
art the Christ, the Son of God" (John vi. 69,
70).

The Apostles who had witnessed the tran-
substantiation of water into wine at the mar-
riage feast of Cana in Galilee (John ii. 1-11),
the feeding of the five thousand with five barley
loaves and two fishes (John vi. 1-14), and the
many other miracles wrought by the Son of
God, never questioned His power to change
bread and wine into His Body and Blood. So
Catholics believe this dogma on the words of
the Son of God, and ask not to fathom a mys-
tery of God.

Transubstantiation has an analogy in nature,
imperfect though it may be. For is not the
human body, which changes entirely every few
years, made up of the food we have assimilated ?
Does not at least a part of this food become
body and blood ? Why believe in this gradual,
mysterious change that God works in us con-
tinually, and deny Him the power of instantly
changing food into His Body and Blood (J. S.
Vaughan, ' 1 Thoughts for all Times," pp. 140-
142; Wiseman, Lectures on the Real Pres-
ence, Lecture vi.)

Digitized by

The Holy Eucharist. 437

Does not the dogma of the Real Presence di-
rectly contradict the evidence of my senses?
They declare that what I see and taste is merely
bread and wine.

Not in the slightest degree. " All that we
can see, touch, or taste are the accidents (ap-
pearances), but they have not been changed, or
in any way affected. There is no miracle,
therefore, in the fact that when we look at a
consecrated host we do not see the substance of
Christ's Body. The miracle would be if we
did. All that we see after the consecration is
just precisely what we saw before the consecra-
tion, viz., the accidents of bread. And our
senses are not deceived, for the things we see are
really there, viz., the accidents of bread — the
invisible substance alone having departed " (J.
S. Vaughan, " Thoughts for all Times," p. 139).

Our objector must remember that the senses
judge only of appearances, and therefore often
cause a man to make false inferences of fact.
The rational mind corrects these when reason,
science, or revelation declares them false. Con-
sider, for example, the sense of sight. It will
not prove the Copernican theory, but rather
tell us that the sun rises in the east and sets
in the west;* it will not perceive the myriads
of animalculse in a glass of water unless aided
by the fhicroscope ; it will not distinguish the
difference between two pieces of iron — the one

i

Digitized by GooqIc

438 .

The Question Box.

magnetized and the other not ; it could not per-
ceive the divinity of our Lord, but declared, in
the mouth of the unbelieving Jew, " Is not this
the Carpenters Son?" (Matt. xiii. 55).

If, then, Jesus Christ declares that the sub-
stance underlying the appearance of bread in
the consecrated host is His Body and Blood,
we accept His testimony without question, for
we know He is the infallible God.

How can Christ be at the right hand of the
Father, and on earth at the same time ?

How can the Body of Christ be in so many
places at the same time?

Does not the Saviour expressly deny His Real
Presence among the people to-day? "For ye
have the poor with you always, . . . but
Me ye have not always" (Mark xiv. 7).

"The whole question/ ' writes Father Dal-
gairns, "resolves itself into this: Can a body
be unextended ? Who will say that God can-
not take from a body the property of ex-
tension? What contradiction is there in it?
Is it not easy for us to conceive substance with-
out extension ? If you take to pieces the idea
of substance, we shall find that it is quite in-
dependent of quantity, on which extension de-
pends ; for the smallest grain of gold is as
really and substantially gold as all the precious
metal contained in the whole universe.

Digitized by

The Holy Eucharist. 439

" Again, quantity is a sensible thing which
is seen by the eye and felt by the touch ; but
as for substance, it is revealed to us by the
mind alone. Let God but only reduce a body
to the state of pure substance, and it ceases at
once to be extended without ceasing to be
a body. It is by extension that a body becomes
subject to the laws of space; take extension
away, and it partakes at once of some of the
prerogatives of spirit.

"This then is what God has done to the
Body of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. It
has ceased to be extended, and all at once it is
freed from the fetters which bound it to place.
It is not so much that it is in many places at
once as that it is no longer under the ordinary
laws of space at all. It pervades the Host like
a spirit. It uses indeed the locality formerly
occupied by the bread, in order to fix itself
into a definite place ; but it only comes into the
domain of space indirectly, through the species
(the appearances of bread and wine), as the soul
only enters into its present relations with space
through the body. Who will say that this in-
volves contradiction or that it is beyond the
power of omnipotence? 99 (Dalgairns, "The
Holy Communion," pp. 33, 34).

We find this multiplication of the sacramen-
tal presence of Christ foreshadowed in the
miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and

Digitized by

440

The Question Box.

fishes in the desert (John vi. 13). Who can ex-
plain how five barley loaves would suffice to
satisfy the hunger of five thousand, or how
each loaf could have been at one and the same
time in the hands of several persons? (C/.
J. S. Vaughan, " Thoughts for all Times," pp.
142-146).

It is indeed a wonderful mystery that Jesus
Christ should be really present on thousands of
altars the world over ; but the Christian does
not deny a fact merely because it is mysteri-
ous. Mystery is often the law for the finite
intelligence in things human ; much more,
therefore, in divine things. We know little in-
deed of substance, or of glorified bodies, al-
though the Apostle tells us that our own will
possess new and wonderful qualities (I. Cor. xv.
42-44). Who can explain how the glorified
Body of the Risen Christ passed through the
stone of the Sepulchre (Mark xv. 46) , or through
the closed door of the upper room in Jeru-
salem? (John xx. 26). Who can explain how
the human soul is really and wholly present in
every part of the human body ? — a fact of philos-
ophy admitted even by the pagan Aristotle.

The text cited above clearly refers to His
natural visible presence among the disciples
during His earthly ministry. It' in no way
contradicts the fact of His sacramental pres-
ence in the Eucharist. He also says : "lam

Digitized by

The Holy Eucharist.

441

with you all days, even to the consummation
of the world* ' (Matt, xxviii. 20).

Do not many Episcopalians in this country and
in England believe in transubstantiation as much
as you Catholics do?

Yes ; but they believe it on the Protestant prin-
ciple of private judgment, and being deprived
of valid orders, their ministers have no power
< whatsoever to change the bread and wine into
Christ the Lord's body. Their Church is hope-
lessly divided on this point, having no divine
authority to teach the Gospel, and indeed in its
official capacity declares " transubstantiation,
or the change of the substance of bread and
wine in the supper of the Lord, cannot be
proved from Holy Writ; but is repugnant to
the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the
nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion
to many* superstitions' ' (Art. XXVIII.)

Dr. Ryle, the Profestant Bishop of Liver-
pool, wrote in his Visitation Charge, Novem-
ber, 1893, regarding "the real di visions' ' on
this point of doctrine: "One section of our
clergy, and probably the majority, maintains
that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice ; another,
and probably the minority, maintains with
equal firmness that it is% not, and should only
be called a sacrament. One maintains that the
communion table is an altar, and should al-

Digitized by

442 The Question Box.

ways be treated as such. Another maintains
that it is only the Holy Table.

"One maintains that the minister at the
lord's Supper is a sacrificing priest. t An-
other maintains that he is only an officiating
presbyter, though called a priest, and that there
is no authority for sacerdotalism in the New
Testament or the prayer-book.

" One maintains that there is a real objective
presence of Christ's body and blood under the
form of the consecrated bread and wine. The
other maintains that there is no real presence
whatsoever except in the heart of believing
communicants."

Can a Church powerless to teach infallibly
on so vital a dogma claim to witness divinely to
the Gospel of Christ ? Can a Church which
cannot answer with certainty when questioned
by eager, earnest souls, pretend to be God's
Church? High-Churchmen believe firmly in
the Real Presence on the Catholic altar. If
they find all the Eastern Christians, all Roman
Catholics, and many of their own Church de-
clare unanimously that they are kneeling in
adoration to a mere piece of bread, should they
not investigate most thoroughly into the rea-
sons why? {American Cath. Quarterly, a.d.
1899, p. 137 )

Why do you deny the cup to the laity ?

Digitized by

The Holy Eucharist.

443

Why do you deprive the people of half the
Lord's Supper ?

Why don't Catholics give the Communion as it
was given in Apostolic times?

How can your Church change a divinely ap-
pointed Sacrament ?

Did not Jesus command us, saying : " Drink
ye all of it"? (Matt. xxvi. 27).

The Catholic Church teaches that the re-
ception of Communion under the form ot wine
is not absolutely necessary, for she has ever
believed 1 ( that as much is contained under
either species as under both ; for Christ, whole
and entire, exists under the species of bread,
and under each (divided) particle of that
species ; and whole under the species of wine,
and under its (separated) parts' 1 (Trent,
Sess. xiii. c. 3). The Eucharist is the living
Christ ; and as a living body is not without its
blood, or living blood without a body, so Christ
is received whole and entire under either form
of bread and wine.

It is natural enough that Protestants who
deny the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the
Eucharist, and believe that the sacrament con-
sists merely in* the eating bread and drinking
wine in memory of the Saviour — a partaking
by faith — should insist on receiving both bread
and wine. But Catholics having the Christ —
Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinky — beneath the

Digitized by

444 Tks Question Box.

i

appearances, regard it as a matter of disci-
pline which of them is to be received in Holy
Communion.

The Scriptures show us the Saviour promis-
ing the same reward to Communion under one
kind as tinder both. To quote the Council of
Trent: "He who said: Except you eat the
flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood,
you shall not have life in you (John vi. 54),
has likewise said : If any man eat of it he may
not die (vi. 50). And He who has said: He
that eateth My flesh and drinketh My Blood
hath everlasting life (vi. 55), has also said:
The bread that I will give is My flesh, for the life
of the world (vi. 52). And lastly, He who has
said : He that eateth My flesh and drinketh
My blood, abideth in Me and I in him (vi. 59),
has nevertheless said: He who eateth this
bread shall live for ever (vi. 59)' ' (Sess. xxi.
ch. i.)

Frequently, too, the receiving of Communion
under the form of bread is mentioned in the
Scriptures: " They were persevering in the
doctrine of the Apostles, and in the communi-
cation of the breaking of bread, and in prayers "
(Acts ii. 42) ; " Whosoever shall eat this bread
or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily,
shall be guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord" (I. Cor. xi. 27; Acts xx. 7; Luke
xxiv. 30, 31).

Digitized by

The Holy Eucharist.

445

In this passage in the King James' Protest-
ant version the word and is substituted for or
without any warrant save the need of contro-
versy, although the late revised version cor-
rects the text in accordance with the original
Greek and the Catholic English version.

The words " drink ye all of it" (Matt,
xxvi. 27) were addressed, not to the faithful in
general but to the Apostles who alone were pres-
ent. • ' And they (the Apostles) all drank of it * '
(Mark xiv. 23). The Eucharist is not only
a sacrament but a sacrifice (" do this for a
commemoration of Me," I^uke xxii. 19), and
the sacrifice requires that the Victim, Jesus
Christ, be at least mystically immolated, and
His precious Blood shed in a mystical way.
This is the reason why the Body and Blood
of the Saviour, although inseparably united,
are produced at Mass by a two-fold consecra-
tion— « ' This is My Body," " This is My
Blood ' ' — and under both forms. It was also re-
quired to complete the sacrifice that the Apos-
tles and their successors, the priests of the
New Law, should partake of the sacrifice
under both forms. When, however, priests do
not celebrate Mass, as when receiving the
Viaticum in illness, they receive just as the
laity, under the form of bread alone.

Moreover, any one versed in Church history
knows that the practice of the Church has

Digitized by

446

The Question Box.

varied at different periods, according to cir-
cumstances. The Fathers of the Church tell
us that the anchorites of the desert, travellers
going on long journeys, people in their homes
before their morning meal, and others in
danger of death, as well as the martyrs in the
prisons, received under the form of bread alone,
whilst infants received under the form of wine
alone.

In the fifth century Pope Gelasius (a.d.
492) commanded the laity to receive under
both forms, to deter from Communion the
Manicheans, who heretically considered wine
evil in itself. The law commanding the laity
to receive under the form of bread dates from
the Council of Constance (a.d. 1414), and
was directed against the heretical Hussites,
who declared the use of the cup absolutely
necessary. Custom, however, had long before
this done away with Communion under the
form of wine, for the reasons set forth in the
catechism of the Council of Trent (Part ii.
ch. 14, n. 64), viz,, the scarcity of pure wine
in certain places, the danger of spilling the
consecrated species, the repugnance of some,
etc. (Milner, "The End of Religious Con-
troversy,M Letter xxxix.; "Faith of Catho-
lics,* ' vol. ii.)

What would happen to the Sacrament if your

Digitized by

The Holy Eucharist

447

church was destroyed by fire? Is it not blas-
phemy to assert that Christ's sacred Body is
digested by one of His followers ?

Catholics believe that Christ's Body is now
a glorified Body, and therefore incapable of
suffering or change. Christ remains under the
appearances of bread and wine no longer than
these material appearances remain ; once they
cease because of digestion, or from any other
cause, the presence of Christ ceases also.

Why do Catholics place one knee on the floor
before entering the pew ?

Catholics genuflect on entering and leaving
the Church as a mark of love and adoration to
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is really
present upon the Catholic altar.

Why do Catholics fast before receiving Com-
munion ?

Out* of honor and respect to Jesus Christ,
whom they are going to receive. This was
the practice of the primitive Christians, as we
learn from Tertullian in the second century
(Ad Uxorem, ii. 5).

What is meant by Benediction of the Blessed
Sacrament ?

Benediction is the blessing of the people by
Jesus Christ, really present in the Blessed Sac-
rament.

Digitized by

448

The Question Box.

After the candles are lighted upon the altar,
the priest takes the Host consecrated at Mass
out of the tabernacle, and places It in a stand
of gold or silver called the monstrance or os-
tensorium, which remains upon the altar, or
upon an elevated throne where it may be seen
by all the people, who kneel and adore the
Saviour.

The priest then puts incense into the thuri-
ble, and waves it three times in the direction
of the Blessed Sacrament, as a symbol of the
people's prayer. " Let My prayer be directed
as incense in Thy sight" (Ps. cxl.' 2). The
choir or the people sing special hymns in honor
of Jesus Christ, usually " O Salutaris Hostia "
(O Saving Host) and the "Tantum Ergo"
(Down in adoration falling).

Then placing over his shoulders a long*
silk scarf, called the humeral veil, the priest
takes up the monstrance, and with it makes the
sign of the cross over the, people; and thus the
Eucharistic Christ blesses the people.

There is no more beautiful or impressive
ceremony in the Catholic Church, as many non-
Catholics who have witnessed it have testified.
After the Benediction the consecrated Host is
again placed in the tabernacle, whilst the choir
sings the cxvi. Psalm : " O praise the Lord, all
ye nations," or the hymn 4 * Holy God, we
praise Thy Name."

Digitized by

The Mass.

449

THE MASS.

What do you mean by the Mass?

"The Mass, according to Catholic doctrine,
is a commemoration of the sacrifice of the
Cross, for as often as we celebrate it, we show
the death of the Lord until He come (I. Cor.
xi. 26). At the same time, it is not a bare
commemoration of that other sacrifice, since it
is also itself a true sacrifice in the strict sense
of the term. It is a true sacrifice because it
has all the essentials of a true sacrifice : its
Priest, Jesus Christ, using the ministry of an
earthly representative ; its Victim, Jesus Christ,
truly present under the appearances of bread
and wine ; its sacrificial offering, the mystic
rite of consecration. And it commemorates
the sacrifice of the Cross, because whilst its
Priest is the Priest of Calvary, its Victim the
Victim of Calvary, and its mode of offering a
mystic representation of the blood-shedding of
Calvary, the end also for which it is offered is
to carry on the work of Calvary, by pleading
for the application of the merits consummated
on the Cross to the souls of men" (Vindica-
tion of the Bull on Anglican Orders, by the
Bishops of England, p. 12).

What is the difference between a High Mass
and a Low Mass?

They are essentially the same, and differ

Digitized by

45o

The Question Box,

only in the external ceremonies, which are
more numerous and solemn in the former. A
Solemn High Mass implies the presence of a
deacon and subdeacon to assist the priest.

Did not Christ do away with sacrifices alto-
gether in founding a new religion ? What proof,
indeed, is there in the Scriptures that He estab-
lished a new one, which you call the Mass ?

Among all nations and peoples from the be-
ginning (Gen. iv.)> Mohammedans and Protest-
ants alone excepted, sacrifice, or the offering to
God of the visible things of His creation in
token of His supreme dominion and of our
utter dependence upon Him, has been the chief
external act of religion.

• In the Old Law, God answered this natural
instinct of the human heart by giving to the
Jewish people clear and explicit details of the
various sacrifices, known as holocausts, or burnt-
offerings; eucharistic, or thank-offerings (Exod*
xxix.); impetratory, or peace-offerings (Lev.
xxiv. 5-9), and propitiatory, or sin-offerings
(Num. xxviii. 15).

We know from the Epistle to. the Hebrews
that these sacrifices were indeed only temporary „
and types of the great sacrifice of Christianity.
The priesthood of the Old Law foreshadowed
the High- Priest Christ Jesus (Heb. viii.) ; the
Jewish sacrifices, unable of themselves to take

Digitized by

The Mass.

45i

away sin (Heb. x. 4), pointed to the Sacrifice
of Calvary, where ' ' Christ being come, an
High-Priest of the good things to come,
<. . . by His own blood . . . obtained
^eternal redemption" (Heb. ix. 11, 12).

This sacrifice, whereby man was redeemed,
could not be repeated (Heb. x. 14), but the
Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is this
identical sacrifice, applying daily on the altars
of the world the infinite merits of Jesus Christ
to individual souls.

The prophet Malachi foretold a new sacrifice
in place of the Jewish sacrifices, which was to
be offered up among all the nations of the
earth : * * I have no pleasure in you (the
priests), saith the Lord of hosts, and I will not
receive a gift of your hand. For from the ris-
ing of the sun even to the going down, My
name is great among the Gentiles ; and in every
place there is a sacrifice, and there is offered to
my name a clean oblation ; for My Name is
great among the Gentiles, 4 saith the Lord of
hosts" (Mai. i. 10, 11).

Again, St. Paul (Heb. vii. 17) calls Jesus
Christ a priest for ever according to the order
of Melchisedech (Gen. xiv. 18), as distinguished
from the order of Aaron. The unbloody sac-
rifice of Melchisedech — bread and wine — typi-
fies therefore, as a type the reality, the sacrifice
that Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper.

Digitized by

452

The Question Box.

The sacrifice of the Mass was instituted at
the Last Supper, where, as we read in Luke
xxii. 20, Mark xiv. 24, Matt. xxvi. 28, our
Lord declares that His blood contained at that .
moment in the chalice 44 is shed for the remis-
sion of sins,' ' as the blood of victims in the
Old Law was offered to the Lord for a sin-offer-
ing (Num. xxviii. 15). This shedding of the
blood of Christ, physically upon the Cross, is in
the sacrifice of the Mass mystical, and consists
in the representation of Christ's death by the
separate consecration of the Body and the
Blood of Christ, although both are really in-
separably united.

St. Paul, warning the Corinthians (I. Cor.
x. 14-21) against taking part in the idolatrous
I worship around them, makes a comparison be-
tween the Corinthian pagan sacrificial altar and
the " table " (altar) of the Christians. Again,
he declares eating the flesh of a victim
makes the pagan a sharer in the sacrificial of-
ferings, and that therefore a Christian who, at
the table (altar) of the Lord, receives Jesus
Christ ("the Body of the Lord" and "the
Blood of Christ " ), ought not to eat victims
sacrificed to idols. If there were no Eucharistic
sacrifice of which the Christians partook, the
argument of the Apostle would be utterly with-
out meaning.

One other reference to the Mass is made by

Digitized by

The Mass.

453

St. Luke, when he tells us that the Christians
of Antioch * * were miitistering to the Lord ' '
(Acts xiii. 2). The word ministering here used
always refers to sacrifice (Heb. ix. 21, x. 11),
and has ever been the Greek equivalent (litur-
gy) for the Latin Missa (Mass). (For the tes-
timonies of the Fathers, see " Faith of Catho-
lics/* vol. ii. p. 385-505; Wm. Humphrey,
S.J., "The One Mediator"; Daniel Rock,
D.D., "Hierurgia," vol. i. ; Wilhelm-Scan-
nell, "Manual of Catholic Theology," vol. ii.
p. 431-463 ; O'Brien, "History of the Mass.")

Is not the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross per-
fect and all-sufficient? St. Paul spys: "By
one oblation He hath perfected for ever them
that are sanctified " (Heb. x. 14), and " we are
sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus
Christ once" (Heb. x. 10).

Catholics hold that the infinite merits and
efficacy of the sacrifice of the Cross cannot be
increased by any new sacrifice. The Mass is
not a new sacrifice, but the continuation of the
bloody sacrifice of the Cross applied in an un-
bloody manner to the souls of individual Chris-
tians, announcing daily " the death of the Lord
until He come" (I. Cor. xu 26), in fulfilment
of the command of Christ : * * Do this for a com-
memoration of me" (Luke xxii. 19). Was it
fair to translate the Greek word " ephapax " in

Digitized by

454 The Question Box.

the Protestant authorized version (Heb. x. 10)
" once for ally 9 whereas in all other passages
where the word occurs it is translated merely
by the word "once"* (Rom. vi. 10; I. Cor.
xv. 6; Heb. ix. 12, etc.)

Catholics denounce the irrational and in-
credible doctrine of the Atonement held by the
Reformers, that no matter how wicked a man
might be, he might still rest content with the
thought that Christ has made full atonement for
all his sins, which was imputed to the sinner
without any co-operation on his part. We be-
lieve the merits of Christ were indeed infinite,
but they must in some way be applied to the
sinner. They afford the means of salvation;
but a sinner must freely, through the sacra-
ments and the Mass which apply that atone-
ment, make them through God's grace his own.

How can you be sure that Masses take souls out
of Purgatory? Do you know the secrets of God ?

We do not pretend to know how far God ap-
plies the infinite merits of the sacrifice of the
Mass to either the living or the dead. We
know, however, its propitiatory character by
the infallible witness of the Church (Trent.,
Sess. xxii. can. 3), which voices the teaching
of all the ancient liturgies, and of the Fathers.
"By Apostolic laws," says St. Chrysostom
(a.d. 398), 11 it is determined that in the vener-

Digitized by

The Mass.

455

able mysteries commemoration of the dead be
made" (In Phil. Horn., 3, n. 4).

Why must Catholics go to church every Sun-
, day under penalty of sin ? Our churches are
not so exacting.

Because it is one of the laws of their Church,
who as the divine, infallible teacher of the reve-
lation of Jesus Christ alone dares command
men with authority, to show at least this much
homage to Jesus Christ present on her altars at
the sacrifice of Calvary. I remember being
asked once by a Congregational minister in
Connecticut the secret of our large church at-
tendance compared to the average small attend-
ance in the Protestant churches throughout the
country. " Jesus Christ really present," was
my answer, "with the conviction that the
Church, His living, divine voice, has power to
command even as He, under penalty of damna-
tion.' ' When men disclaim all notion of infal-
libility for their church, and teach merely
views, opinions, and speculations about the
gospel of Christ, religious faith becomes daily
more and more vague and shadowy, and its ob-
ligations soon vanish entirely.

What prayers does the priest say at Mass?
The chief prayers of the Mass are : the Forty-
second Psalm, "Judge me, O Lord 99 ; the Con.

Digitized by

456

The Question Box.

fiteor, or confession of sins ; the Introit, consist-
ing generally of a verse of a psalm from the old
Itala version of the Scriptures ; the Kyrie Elei-
son, or Lord have mercy on us (Matt. xx. 30 ;
Luke xvii. 13) ; the Gloria in Excelsis, or the
angels' song of joy at the birth of Christ (Luke
ii. 13, 14) ; the Dominus Vobiscum, the Lord be
with you (Ruth ii. 4 ; Luke i. 28 ; II. Tim. iv.
22) ; the Collects or Prayers, some of which are
over thirteen hundred years old; the Epistle
and Gospel, read from the earliest times, as the
Jews used to read Moses and the prophets in
the synagogue (Acts xiii. 15); the Credo, or
Nicene Creed ; the Offertory, so-called for the
offerings formerly made by the people of bread
and wine for the sacrifice ; the Preface, or the
introduction to the most solemn part of the
Mass, called the Canon ; the Sanctus (Isaias vi.
3 ; Apoc. iv. 8 ; Matt. xxi. 9); the memento, or
special prayer for the living ; the consecration,
This is My Body ; this is My Blood (Matt,
xxvi. 26); the memento for the dead ; the Pater
Noster, or Our Father (Matt. vi. 9); the Agnus
Dei (John i. 29); the Communion, the Blessing,
the Last Gospel— generally John i. 1-14.

The prayers of the liturgy breathe the simple
sweetness of the Word of God and of the early
Fathers, who prayed with hearts full of love for
Jesus Christ. No non-Catholic can read them
once and not perceive their wondrous beauty and

Digitized by

The Mass.

457

devotion. Indeed, a study of these prayers has
made more than one earnest soul realize how
false the spirit of the Reformation that could
stigmatize them as "blasphemous fables and
dangerous deceits" (Rev, John O'Brien, "A
History of the Mass"). Most of the beautiful
prayers in the Episcopal prayer-book, so much
admired and loved, are merely translations of
the old Catholic prayers.

Why do you charge for Masses ? Is not this
the sin of Simon Magus ? (Acts viii. 18-24).

Why do you exact a fixed sum of money to get
people out of Purgatory ? Should not salvation
be free to all?

Is not the money-payment for the so-called re-
lease of souls from Purgatory a human invention
for filthy lucre, without the slightest warrant in
the word of God?

Do you think it just that a rich man, simply
because he has bequeathed money for Masses,
should be liberated sooner from Purgatory than
the poor man who leaves nothing, and has no
wealthy friends to give money to the priest?
Why have different prices for High and Low
Mass?

We do not charge for Masses. The sin of
Simon Magus consisted in his endeavoring to
purchase the apostolic gift of miracles. Simony
in every form — that is, the buying and selling

Digitized by

458 The Question Box.

of benefices, bishoprics, and abbacies, traffic in
Masses, etc.— has ever been denounced as a
grievous sin by the Catholic Church, and sever-
est measures possible taken to guard against it
(cf. Alzog, " Universal Church Hist.," vol. ii.
pp. 160, 32^, 369, 487). Her words to the
simoniacal are the words of the first Pope, St.
Peter: "Keep thy money to thyself, to perish
with thee, because thou hast thought that the
gift of God may be purchased with money.
. . . Thy heart is not right in the sight of
God. Do penance, therefore, for thy wicked-
ness* * (Acts viii. 20-23).

The honoraria^ or stipends, for Masses are not
the purchase-price of the Holy Sacrifice, but
offerings or donations made by the people, in a
spirit of love for the Church, to provide for the
support of the clergy. The custom of making
this donation dates from the twelfth century, for
prior to this the people made at the offering of
the Mass donations of all those things required
for the carrying on of divine service, viz., bread,
wine, oil, incense, etc.

The Church allows the priest to receive
money for only one Mass a day ; and if more
Masses are asked for than he can say, he is
bound to have them said by other priests —
generally in poor districts where no offerings are
made. As for the variation in stipends for a Re-
quiem High Mass, we must take into account

Digitized by

The Mass,

459

the expense incurred for the extra services of
organist, choir, etc.

Of course abuses have occurred and will oc-
cur, for "the desire of money is a root of all
evil " (I. Tim. vi. 10), as the Apostle tells us.
The logical mind, however, will always ascribe
these abuses to the sins of the individual, and
not to the Church, which is most zealous to do
away with them.

The religious duty of supporting the clergy
is clearly set forth in the Old and New Testa-
ment, and the Catholic Church commands her
children to do so by a special precept. In the
Old Law the Jews set aside one-tenth of their
flocks for their priests: "Of all the tithes of
oxen and sheep and goats that pass under the
shepherd's rod, every tenth that cometh shall
be sanctified to the Lord" (Lev. xxvii. 32;
Gen. xxviii. 22). Again, God ordered the
people to make certain specified donations to
the priests when they exercised their ministry.
Thus, women after child-birth offered the priest
"a lamb for a holocaust, and a young pigeon,
or a turtle, for sin" (Lev. xii. 6); or if too
poor, like the Blessed Virgin (Luke ii. 24), two
turtle doves, or two young pigeons, . . .
"and the priest shall pray for her" (Lev.
xii. 8).

In the New Testament St. Paul expressly
teaches the same duty : 1 * Know you not, that

Digitized by Google

4$o

The Question Box.

they who work in the holy place, eat the things
that are of the holy place ; and that they who
serve at the altar, partake with the altar. So
also the Lord, ordained that they who preach
the gospel should live by the gospel " (I. Cor.
ix. 13, 14).

The custom, therefore, of making donations
to the priesthood is sanctioned by God Him-
self. Why, even non-Catholics, on the occa-
sion of a marriage or baptism, give a donation
to their ministers. Do they consider this sim-
ony ? Why, in all fairness, is it right for the
minister to accept his marriage fee, and yet
wrong for a priest to receive a stipend for a
Mass? The principle involved is identical in
both cases.

As a matter of fact, it is the poor, and not
the rich, who, as a general rule, contribute
most generously to the support of the Church
and the priesthood in our country. As for the
objection about praying souls out of purgatory,
one which I have frequently met with on mis-
sions to non-Catholics, I would say that the
Catholic Church claims no j urisdiction over souls
in the other world, and professes absolute ignor-
ance regarding God's particular application qf
the infinite merits of the passion and death of
His Son to the souls in purgatory. All Masses
and prayers for the dead are applied "by way
of suffrage " — that is, are dependent on God's

Digitized by

The Mass.

secret mercy and will, who in His infinite
justice may apply to another soul altogether
the Masses said for a certain individual,

Npn-Catholics generally think that five hun-
dred Masses have five hundred times the effi-
cacy of one. This is not the case. The value
of each Mass is infinite, but we never know
with perfect certainty whether or not God has
applied it to the individual soul for whom it
has been offered, although we do know He
answers all our prayers.

Non-Catholics also forget that thousands of
Masses and prayers are offered up yearly for
all the souls in purgatory, and that in every
Mass a special prayer is said by the priest for
all the faithful departed: "To these, O Lord,
and to all who rest in Christ, grant, we pray
Thee, a place of refreshment, light, and peace.
Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen"
(Memento for the dead). There is no danger
that God will allow any soul to suffer more than
it deserves, or that one's poverty will make a
soul less pleasing in God's sight. Besides,
thousands of Masses are said yearly by priests
for individuals too poor to make any donation
whatsoever.

Why do you carry on your services in a tongue
not known by the people ? Why not say Mass
in the language of the congregation?

Digitized by

462 The Question Box,

Why do priests preach in Latin ? Why do you
deliver so many of your sermons in Latin ? Is it
to keep the people in ignorance?

Sermons are never preached to the people in
Latin, but always in their own tongue. As to
the words of the Mass and other official services,
we do not consider the use of the Latin lan-
guage essential, for in the East the use of the
vernacular is permitted. The Latin language,
however, is the official language of the Catholic
Church in her liturgy, councils, etc., for many
reasons:

1 st. Historically, it bears witness to the ori-
gin of the faith of Western Christendom, Rome,
the converter of the nations — for instance,
France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, England,
Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, Poland.
The Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ,
when the Roman Empire was supreme, natu-
rally adopted in her liturgy the language of
the people, and her missionaries kept the lan-
guage of Rome in the divine service even when
they had to preach in the vernacular. Prot-
estant churches, born in modern times, adopted
as a consequence the modern languages.

2d. Again, Latin being a dead language, is
free from all those changes inevitable to modern
tongues. In these latter, words are continually
becoming obsolete, and so change in meaning
as to become unintelligible and ridiculous to the

Digitized by

The Mass.

463

ears of succeeding generations. Latin, there-
fore, preserves the dignity of the liturgy and
the perfect exactness of the dogmatic decrees of
Councils, so necessary in a perennial, unchange*
able Church.

34. A Universal Church, moreover, should
have a universal language. It is the same
principle that made business men some years
ago endeavor to establish Volupiik as a com-
mon means of communication, or medical men
of late discuss the advisability of adopting some
common language in their congresses. Did, any
one ever object, for example, to French as the
language of diplomacy? Latin allows the
Catholic people to feel at home everywhere in
the universal bond of a common language at
their Sunday Mass, and enables the Catholic
bishops of the world to correspond easily with
the Roman See, and discuss matters of dogma
and discipline in the councils of the Universal
Church.

4th. In the Jewish synagogue the services
were conducted in Hebrew even after it had
ceased to be jj0 language of the people, who
lost it at the time of the Captivity (II. Esdras viii.
13). And so in the East to-day the Melchites
say Mass in Greek and the Syrians in Syriac,
although Arabic is the language of the people.

Indeed, there' is no reason for fault-finding,
for remember that in those parts of the service

Digitized by

464

The Question Box.

that we have in common with Protestants,
namely, preaching, public prayers, and hymn-
singing, we use the language of the people.
But the Mass with us is more of an action than
a prayer — an act of sacrifice which the priest
offers up in the name of Christ for the people.

The people are, therefore, perfectly free to
follow their own special devotion in the manner
of hearing Mass, either meditating on the pas-
sion and death of Jesus Christ, or, if they so
desire, following the prayers of the liturgy in
the translations to be found in their prayer-
books. It would indeed be practically impos-
sible in some of our large churches for the
priest to be understood, even if he did celebrate
Mass in English, and as a matter of fact the
liturgical laws of the Church command that
certain prayers be read, for sake of greater rev-
erence, in a very low voice. There is no more
necessity for the people of our day understand-
ing what the priest says than of old when Jew-
ish priests prayed alone in the Tabernacle at
the hour of sacrifice (Luke i. 9, 10). .

I have frequently wondered why so many
otherwise well-informed non-Catholics imagined
that we preached in I^atin to our congregations.
Aside from ignorance arising from deliberate
calumny in the past, I know of no way to ac-
count for this save that some Protestants attend-
ing a Catholic burialv service have mistaken the

Digitized by

The Mass,

465

Latin liturgical prayers read by the priest over
the body of the deceased for a sermon to the
people.

Does not St. Paul condemn your use of Latin
when he says : " Yet in the church I had rather
speak five words with my understanding, that
by my voice I might teach others also, than ten
thousand words in an unknown tongue " ? (I.
Cor. xiv. 19).

No ; St. Paul is not speaking of the liturgy
of the Church at all, but is condemning those
Christians at Corinth who, instead of teaching
the people, were merely making an ostentatious
display of their miraculous gift of tongues —
praying and preaching words unintelligible to
their hearers without an interpreter. In the
Catholic Church all the sermons, instructions,
and private prayers are in the language of the
people.

Why did the Protestant translators of this
chapter add the word * ' unknown ' ' in verses
2, 4, 13, 14, 19, and 27, and omit this same
word in verses 18 and 39, where the use of un-
known tongues is approved ? The same phrase
occurs in the Greek original : ' c I thank my
God I speak with (unknown) tongues more than
ye all." " Wherefore, brethren, . . , for-
bid not to speak with (unknown) tongues " (w-
18 and 39).

Digitized by

466

The Question Box.

Why, again, were the Irish people, in the
reign of Queen Elizabeth, compelled by statute
to be present at the reading of the English lit-
urgy, which they did not understand, if Prot-
estants were so zealous for having service cele-
brated in the language of the people ? (P.
Heylin, "Hist, of Reformation," p. 128).

ORDERS.

May not any one who is filled with the Apos-
tolic spirit preach the Gospels of Christ without
going through a ceremony of so-called ordina-
tion ? ,

No, for the Scriptures expressly declare there
must be a divine commission to teach:
"Neither doth any man take the honor to
himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron
was " (Heb. v. 4) ; and again, " How can they
preach unless they be sent" (Rom. x. 15;
€f. Matt, xxviii. 19).

Our Lord instituted the Christian priesthood
when he gave his Apostles and their successors
the power to offer up the sacrifice of the Mass
(Matt. xxvi. 26-28; I. Cor. xi. 23-25), and to
forgive and retain sins (John xx. 23). This
power was to be handed down by the sacrament
of Orders (Trent., Sess. xxiii. can. 2), spoken
of by the Apostle : * 1 Neglect not the grace
which was given thee by prophecy, with impo-

Digitized by

Orders.

467

sition pf the hands of the priesthood " (I. Tim.
iv. 14) ; " I admonish thee that thou stir up the
grace of God, which is in thee by the imposi-
tion of my hands" (II. Tim. i. 6). We have
here a special sacrament : the external sign,
namely, the imposition of hands and prayer, the
grace conferred thereby, and the institution by
Christ (cf. Acts vi. 6; xiii. 2, 3; xiv. 22; I.
Tim. v. 22; Tit. i. 5).

Is there the slightest evidence of episcopacy
in the primitive Church ? Were not bishop and
presbyter synonymous terms ?

It is undoubtedly true that in the New Testa-
ment the words Bishop (Episcopos) and Priest
(Presbuteros) were applied without distinction
to the same person (Acts xx. 17, 28; Tit. i.
5-7), but it by no means follows from this that
they had the same office and dignity. The
Bishops, for instance, ot the third century were
often called presbyteri, although their superi-
ority over priests was everywhere acknowl-
edged. The distinction is mentioned by Clem-
ent of Rome (a. d. ioi), and most clearly and
distinctly brought out in the letter of Ignatius
Martyr (a. d. 105-117). Even St. Jerome,
. who is often adduced to the contrary, says
clearly: "What, except ordination, can a
bishop do that a priest cannot do?" (Epis.
101). There is no evidence in all iiistory of a

Digitized by

468

The Question Box.

priest having the power to ordain. Indeed, at
the second Council of Alexandria, under Hosius
(a. r>. 324), all the ordinations of Colluthus, an
Alexandrine priest, were declared null and
void. This power, too, is clear from St. Paul,
who advises the Bishops Timothy and Titus to
Ai ordain priests in every city" (Tit. i. 5), and
" not to impose hands lightly on any man 99 (I.
Tim. v. 22; Alzog, vol. i. pp. 198-204).

Why do Catholics call their priests "father,"
when Christ says : " Call no man father upon the
earth; for one is your Father, which is in
heaven"? (Matt, xxiii. 9).

If this passage is to be taken universally, it
would be wrong to call our parents father, or
our teachers master. Our Lord merely meant
to rebuke the pride of the Scribes and Phari-
sees, who gloried in the salutation of Rabbi,
father, etc.

The word " Father* 9 is given by Catholics
to their priests from their sense of his spiritual
relationship to them, and is fully sanctioned by
Holy Scripture. St. Paul says : " For if you
have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not
many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the
gospel, I have begotten you" (I. Cor. iv. 15).
Again, he calls Timothy "his beloved son"
(I. Tim. i. 2), and St. John calls the early
Christians "little children* ' (I. John ii. 18).

Digitized by

Religious Communities. 469

RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES.

Can we not serve God by serving mankind,
thus following Christ's example ? Why then the
life of the recluse and the cloistered orders ?

What is the good of religious communities?
Is there any mention of them in the Bible ? Are
they essential to Christianity ? Is it not un-
manly to subject one's will to another under
vow? Is not a life of perpetual chastity im-
possible? Is it not the duty of good men and
women to stay in the world and make it better
by their good example? Did not Christ say:
"Let your light so shine," etc. t (Matt. v. 16).

There is no mention of our religious orders
in the Bible, any more than there is mention of
hospitals, foundling asylums, homes for the
aged, or pest-houses for the leper. But the
ideal that prompts their organization is there —
the example and teaching of the poor, obedient,
heroic Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and of the
early Christians. Religious orders of this or
that special kind could all be suppressed to-mor-
row, and the Catholic Church would still exist in
her dogmas, her morality, her discipline, her
sacraments, and her divine infallible authority.
But they are the natural fruit and flower of the
tree of God's planting. They are the answer to
that craving of the human heart for association
in the perfect following of Christ. The com-

Digitized by

470

The Question Box.

mandments are for all under penalty of damna-
tion ; the counsels of Christ are very different,
and are for those who out of the generosity of
their hearts desire to follow Him in the freedom
of the way of perfection (Matt. v. 48).

The New Testament gives us clearly the es-
sence of the religious community — the love of
God and the brethren for His sake. The privi-
leged ones remember Christ's promise to be
present in a special way to those that prayed in
common (Matt.' xviii. 20) ; they realize that
self-denial and mortification are the true marks
of perfect discipleship (Matt. xvi. 24) ; they
practise poverty, because Christ "being rich
became poor for our sakes" (Matt. viii. 20),
while he told the young man of the Gospel:
" If thou will be perfect, go sell what thou hast,
and give to the poor, . . . and come follow
me" (Matt. xix. 21); they observe chastity,
because the virgin Christ was born of a virgin
Mother, and praised virginity as the perfect life
of the few. " He that can take it, let him take
it" (Matt. xix. 12) ; they subject their will to
another, because Jesus Christ came to do the
will of His heavenly Father even unto the death
of the cross, and was obedient unto Joseph and
his mother Mary (John iv. 34 ; Phil. ii. 8 ;
Luke ii. 51).

Why should any one object to men and
women banding together to serve God and the

Digitized by

Religious Communities.

47 1

brethren ? If in religious communities men can
conquer more easily the temptations of pride,
avarice, and lust, pray with greater fervor, fol-
low out the counsels of the Saviour more per-
fectly, and yet withal help the world by the
greatest possible service of prayer, as in con-
templative orders, or by the extraordinary
charity and zeal in the active orders, why
should men grudge them this liberty of asso-
ciation, which is not denied to the man of
business or politics, whose only God is too
often self?

Is chastity impossible? This question pro-
ceeds only from the lips of those whose hearts
are full of sin and passion, and know no higher
ideal than that of carnal lust. It is an insult to
the wives, sisters, and mothers of thousands.

Is obedience unmanly and degrading ? The
Scriptures do not consider the obedience of a
child to its parent or a wife to her husband de-
grading (Eph. v. 22, vi. 1). No one calls the
obedience of a soldier to the commands of his
officer unmanly. Why should subjection to an-
other out of love of God and in the things of
God be evil, when subjection to another out of
self-interest and in the things of this life of
business, politics, etc., is considered good?

But, you object, men should not thus with-
draw from society ; they should take their share
of the burden. History is the witness how no-

Digitized by

472

The Question Box.

bly and well the religious communities of men
and women have served their fellow-men. Is
there a man outside the Catholic Church whose
charity for all has been more fruitful in good
works than St. Vincent de Paul's? In the
Middle Ages who but the monks were the pa-
trons of literature, the arts and the sciences, the
cultivators of the soil, the educators of the ig-
norant ? Indeed, we have only to look around
us to-day, and we must needs bear testimony to
the wonderful work done by such devoted
women as the Sisters of Charity, the Little
Sisters of the Poor, the Sisters of the Good
Shepherd, and the Sisters of Mercy. How
many Protestants have written and spoken in
their praise ? " Father,' ' said one to me lately,
" 1 don't know much about your Church, but I
do know for a certainty that the good sisters of
your Church are the best nurses in the world."
Another : " Father, I saw the Sisters of Charity
in the Civil War serving equally the Blue and
the Gray, and serving me on what I thought
my death-bed. I desire to join the Church,
feeling convinced that the Church that inspires
such devotion must needs be the Church of
Christ." A third : " I intend to send my girls
away to school ; and though a non-Catholic, I
feel the good influence of the sisters of your
Church is something no money can buy." And
so witness on witness can be appealed to — Prot-

Digitized by

Religious Communities, 473

estant, Jew, and infidel alike — concerning the
zeal, charity, and devotion of these women,
who freely dedicate their lives to the service of
the neighbor. The light of their good works
does indeed shine forth before all men, so " that
men give glory to onr Father in Heaven."

But why bind one's self to such a life by a
vow ? The answer is simply this : that men and
women have the same right and liberty in
things divine as in things human. Is it a
blessed thing to swear loyalty to a woman in
the pure bond of marriage, and a curse to swear
loyalty to Christ Jesus in the pure bond of a su-
pernatural espousal ? The world may not un-
derstand, but that is rather due to its spirit
being alien to Christ, for " the sensual man per-
ceiveth not those things that are of the Spirit of
God ; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot
understand, because it is spiritually examined "
(I. Cor. ii. 14).

"I can understand,' * says another, "the
charitable work done by the Apostolic men and
women in your Church ; but what is the good
of contemplative orders ?" To a busy, utilita-
rian, and materialistic age it does indeed seem
strange that men should retire from the world
merely to pray. But to the Christian, who
knows the value and efficacy of prayer, as wit-
nessed to in the Old and New Testaments,
there is no difficulty. He realizes the great

Digitized by

474 The Question Box.

lack of prayer in the world. He knows that
these contemplative orders make atonement for
the sins of many, ask God's mercy upon His
people, and give Him the glory, the praise, and
the honor denied by those who will not serve,
like Satan of old. The efficacy of such prayers
will not be known until the day of Judgment.

In conclusion, let men divest themselves of
their prejudices, and study the history of the
saints of the religious orders, as is being done
to-day by many outside the Catholic Church,
and all his objections will disappear like mists
before the rising sun. One does not learn the
beauties of the landscape from a blind man, or
the blessings of a country's institutions from
one who has proven traitor to it. So fair-
minded men should not listen to the false and
impure utterances of a wicked priest who has
been false to his Church, or an outcast woman,
who, in return for the charity of the sisters who
rescued her from the streets, poses impudently
to a curious world as an "escaped nunM and
calumniates for a price the Church that helped
her in her need.

Were not the monks of the Middle Ages an
idle, ignorant, and immoral set of men ?

Sometimes, indeed, in the course of history
we read of monasteries that relaxed their
ancient discipline, and became a scandal to the

Digitized by

Religious Communities. 475

Church of God. But, as the Protestant his-
torian Maitland says: 14 It appears to be the
testimony of history that the monks and the
clergy, whether bad or good in themselves,
were in all times and places better than other
people' ' (Preface to "The Dark Ages," p. 8).
Again, he speaks of monasteries "as a quiet
and religious refuge for helpless infancy and
old age, a shelter of respectable sympathy for
the orphan maiden and the desolate widow ; as
central points whence agriculture was to spread
over bleak hills and barren downs and marshy
plains, and deal bread to millions perishing
with hunger and its pestilential train; as re-
positories of the learning which then was, and
well-springs of the learning which was to be ;
as nurseries of art and science, giving the stim-
ulus, the means, and the reward to invention,
and aggregating around them every head that
could devise and every hand that could execute ;
as the nucleus of the city, which in after days
of pride shotuld crown its palaces and bulwarks
with the towering cross of its cathedral. This,
I think, no man can deny" (S. R. Maitland,
"The Dark Ages," p. 2).

listen to another Protestant testimony (Cutts,
" Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,"
p. 9): "Their general character was, and con-
tinued throughout the Middle Ages to be, that
of wealthy and learned bodies ; influential from

Digitized by

476

The Question Box.

their broad possessions, but still more influen-
tial from the fact that nearly all the literature
and art and science of the period was to be
found in their body. They were good land-
lords to their tenants, good cultivators of their
demesnes; great patrons of architecture and
sculpture and painting ; educators of the people
in their schools; healers of the sick in their
hospitals ; great alms-givers to the poor ; freely
hospitable to travellers ; they continued regular
and constant in their religious services ; but in
housing, clothing, and diet they lived the life
of temperate gentlemen rather than of self-
denying ascetics. Doubtless, as we have said,
in some monasteries there were evil men, whose
vices brought disgrace upon their calling ; and
there were some monasteries in which weak or
wicked rulers had allowed the evil to prevail."

No one at all conversant with the Middle Ages
can deny that the monasteries were the centres of
the intellectual life of the age; that their build-
ings, farms, libraries, prove that every moment
of the day was busily employed according to
strict rule ; that the universal respect in which
the monks were held by their contemporaries
witnesses to their high moral and religious
character.

Did not Henry VIII. dissolve the monasteries
in his time because of their gross immorality?

Digitized by

Religious Communities.

477

No, he suppressed six hundred monasteries
in a few years (i 536-1 547) that he might con-
fiscate their property. No one who knows his-
tory can accuse this wretch of a king, whose
whole life is marked with lust and murder, of
any zeal for religion or morality (Dom Gasquet,
"Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries " ;
Cobbett, "History of the Reformation ").

Were not recalcitrant nuns walled up alive in
the Middle Ages?

"To any one who honestly looks into the
matter it will be clear that no statutes of any
religious order have yet been brought forward
which prescribe such punishment, that no con-
temporary records speak of its infliction, that
no attempt is made to give details of person or
time, that the few traditions that speak of the
discovery of walled-up remains crumble away
the moment they are examined, that the growth
of the tradition itself can be abundantly ac-
counted for, that the few historians or anti-
quaries of repute, whether Catholic or Prot-
estant, who have looked into the matter, either
avowedly disbelieve the calumny or studiously
refrain from repeating it " (Rev. H. Thurston,
S.J., "The Myth of the Walled-up Nun,"
Catholic Truth Society Publications. Cf.
"The Immuring of Nuns," by same author).

Digitized by

478

The Question Box,

Are women detained in nunneries against their
will? Why are not convents open to public
inspection ?

Because they are private dwellings. Would
you want your home open to every stranger,
good or bad? They can always be visited by
the Bishop of the diocese, or any one who takes
the proper means to be introduced there. The
objection seems based on that false notion which
is so prevalent among non-Catholics, that only
weak-minded women under stress of some
strong emotion, as disappointed love, fanati-
cism, great sorrow, and the like, take the vows
that bind them willy-nilly in a bondage worse
than death. Much of the evil that has been
suggested originates from apostate priests, or
abandoned women who have been under the
care of the good sisters for a time, and repay
their benefactors by calumniating them for
money. How different the facts to one who
investigates at first hand. Many of the noWest
women in the world have freely ghren up all
that the world holds dear, friends, ambition,
wealth, social position, to serve God in poverty,
chastity, and obedience in the silence of the
cloister, or to minister to the wants of the sick,
the aged, and the poor.

Why cannot women preach the Gospel as well
as men ?

Digitized by

Anglican Orders.

479

It has ever been the tradition of the Catholic
Church that women, however high their office
as wives and mothers, were incapable of ordina-
tion, according to the teaching of St. Paul:
" Let women keep silence in the churches, for
it is not permitted them to speak; but to be
subject, as also the law saith. It is a shame
for women to speak in the church " (I. Cor. xiv.
34> 35)- "Let the women learn in silence,
with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman
to teach nor to use authority over the man, but
to be in silence" (I. Tim. ii. n, 12).

Tertullian in the third century reproaches the
heretics of his time for their denial of this cus-
tom. " The very women of these heretics," he
writes, "how wanton they are! For they are
bold enough to teach, to- dispute, to enact exor-
cisms, to undertake cures, if may be even to
baptize" (De Praesc. xli.)

ANGLICAN ORDERS.

What is the attitude of your Church regarding
Anglican Orders?

Why do Catholics deny the validity of the
ordinations in the Episcopal Church ?

Pope Leo XIII., after a careful study of the
question, declared, in the Bull Aposlolicce Curce,
September 13, 1896, the invalidity of Anglican
orders : * ' Wherefore, strictly adhering in this

Digitized by

480 The Question Box.

matter to the decrees of the Pontiffs our prede-
cessors, and confirming them most fully, and,
as it were, renewing them by our authority, of
our own motion and certain knowledge, we pro-
nounce and declare that ordinations carried out
according to the Anglican rite have been, and
are, absolutely null and utterly void."

The two reasons for this condemnation were :
ist, the defect of form in the rite used, viz., the
Edwardine Ordinal ; 2d, the defect of intention
in the minister. Pope I^eo says : " From (the
Anglican rite) has been deliberately removed
whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the
priesthood in the Catholic rite. That form con-
sequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient
for the sacrament which omits what it ought
essentially to signify. The same holds good of
Episcopal consecration. As the sacrament of
Order, and the true priesthood of Christ, were
eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence
the priesthood is in nowise conferred truly and
validly in the Episcopal consecration of the
same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the
episcopate can in nowise be truly and validly
conferred by it ; and this the more so because
among the first duties of the episcopate is that
of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist
and sacrifice.' '

It is historically certain that Cranmer and his
followers, who drew up the Edwardine Ordinal

Digitized by

Anglican Orders.

of 155°> which was used at the consecration of
the first Protestant archbishop, Parker, Decem-
ber 17, 1559, did not believe in a sacrificing
priesthood, bat held that bishops and priests
became such by the mere appointment of the
crown. " In the New Testament, " said Cran-
mer, " he that is appointed to be a bishop or a
priest needeth no consecration by the Scriptures,
for election or* appointment thereto is sufficient"
(Burnet, " History of the Reformation," vol. i,
p. 201. Cf. Green, " History of the English
People," vol. ii. p. 234; I^ondon, 1880. For
Barlow's opinion read Burnet, ibid., and Col-
lier's " Ecclesiastical History," vol. iv. p. 381).
Their views are clearly set forth in the Thirty-
nine Articles, which declared that orders
4 1 would not be counted for a sacrament of the
gospel" (Article XXV.), and the Mass "a
blasphemous fable" (Article XXXI.)

The new Protestant ordinal omitted all the
anointings, the delivery of the vestments, and,
although retaining the imposition of hatods as a
mere ceremony to signify the candidate's ap-
pointment, it purposely omitted those essential
words of the sacramental form which indicated
the sacrificial character of the priesthood. The
defective form ran as follows : " Take the Holy
Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the
grace of God which is in thee by the imposition
of hands, for God hath not given us the spirit

Digitized by

482

The Question Box,

of fear, but of power and love and soberness."
The Catholic argues that these men, wha
denied the sacrament of orders, and declared
the essential power of the priesthood to be a
blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit,
could not have intended to ordain priests in
the Catholic sense of the word.

Says Pope Leo XIII.: " The Church does
not judge about the mind or intention in so far
as it is something by its nature internal ; but in
so far as it is manifested externally, she is
bound to judge concerning it. When any one
has rightly and seriously made use of the due
form and the matter requisite for affecting or
conferring the sacrament, he is considered by
the very fact to do what the Church does. On
this principle rests the doctrine that a sacra-
ment is truly conferred by the ministry of one
who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the
Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand,
if the rite be changed with the manifest inten-
tion of introducing another rite not approved
by the Church, and of rejecting what the
Church does, and what by the institution of
Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament,
then it is clear that not only is the necessary in-
tention wanting to the sacrament, but that the
intention is adverse to and destructive of the
sacrament.' *

Moreover, historically speaking, it is not cer-

Digitized by

Celibacy. 483

tain that Barlow, the consecrator of Parker,
was ever consecrated. (On this point read
Canon Estcourt, "The Question of Anglican
Ordinations," pp. 60 et seq.\ Arthur Hutton,
"Anglican Orders,' ' p. 303; Bellasis, "Was
Barlow a Bishop?")

The Catholic Church has never wavered in
her attitude. From the days of Queen Mary
she has always denied the existence of Angli-
can orders, by ordaining those ministers who
wished on their conversion to enter the ranks
of her apostolic priesthood (Gallwey, "Ritual-
ism," two volumes, Catholic Truth Society
Publications; Sydney Smith, "Reasons for
Rejecting Anglican Orders"; "Rome's Wit-
ness against Anglican Orders " ; Articles on the
Bull Apostolicse Curae in American Catholic
Quarterly ', Dublin Review \ Ecclesiastical Review \
London Tablet \ etc.)

CEUBACY.
Where in the Bible are priests forbidden to
marry?

Why is it that Catholic priests do not marry ?

Because celibacy is one of the disciplinary
laws of the Western Church, which every one
who is ordained subdeacon vows to observe for
life. While not a dogma of the Catholic
Church, it is an obligatory law, imposed with a

Digitized by

484

The Question Box.

view to the dignity and duties of the priest-
hood.

Jesus Christ, himself a Virgin born of a vir-
gin Mother, commends the state of virginity
most highly (Matt. xix. 1 1-13) : " All men take
not this word, but they to whom it is given.
For there are eunuchs, who were born so from
their mother's womb ; and there are eunuchs,
who were made so by men ; and there are eu-
nuchs, who 'have made themselves eunuchs for
the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let
him take it." The Pharisees had questioned
our Lotd as to the lawfulness of divorce.
Our Lord tells them that the Mosaic bill of
divorce had been granted "by reason of the
hardness of their hearts " (ibid.), contrary to the
original law of marriage, which was the indis-
soluble union of one man with one woman.
"What therefore God hath joined together, let
no man put asunder* ' (ibid.); " From the be-
ginning it was not so" (ibid.) This doctrine
seemed so hard that his hearers replied that
celibacy would be preferable to such a lasting
bond of marriage. " If the case of a man with
his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry"
(ibid.) Christ answers that some are celibates
from natural defect, others from being made so by
men, while a third class freely chooses this state
of life for the kingdom of heaven (ibid.) It is
not a commandment for all, but a counsel for

Digitized by

Celibacy.

485

the few: 1 ' All men take not this word, but
they to whom it is given " (ibid.) Evidently
our Lord expressly praises celibacy when vol-
untarily undertaken for His service.

The teaching of St, Paul is exactly the same
(I. Cor. vii.) The Apostle himself led a life of
celibacy and recommended it, as Christ had
done, to those who felt called thereto : " I say,
to the unmarried and to the widows : It is good
for them if they so continue even as I. But if
they do not contain themselves, let them
marry " (w. 8, 9). He declares, moreover,
that there was no commandment of the Lord
either to marry or to lead a life of celibacy ;
both were the free choice of the Christian.
" Concerning virgins, I have no commandment
of the Lord " (ibid.) ; " Art thou bound to a
wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed
from a wife? Seek not a wife. But, if thou
take a wife, thou hast not sinned ; and if a vir-
gin marry, she hath not sinned' 9 (vv. 27, 28).
However, he expressly declares that the state
of celibacy is a higher state than the state of
marriage : ' ' Therefore both he that giveth his
virgin in marriage, doth well ; and he that giv-
eth her not, doth better" (ibid.) Why, then,
in face of the explicit example and teaching of
Jesus Christ and His great Apostle Paul, can
men question the excellence of the virgin life,
and deny certain privileged souls the right of

Digitized by

486

The Question Box.

following more closely in the footsteps of the
Master ?

St. Paul, again, gives us the practical reason
why the priesthood of Christ practises celibacy r
"He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the
things that belong to the Lord, how he may
please God. But he that is with a wife, is
solicitous for the things of the world, how he
may please his wife, and he is divided' ' (w.
32, 33). The Catholic Church realizes well
that better work can be done for God's people
by a celibate clergy than by a married clergy.
The married minister must ' needs divide his
time, work, and money between his flock and
family. H$ is hampered in his ministry by
many household cares ; he must provide for his
wife and children ; look after the education of
his boys and girls, settle them in life, etc. So
evident is this, especially when a married min-
ister is living in a poor cottntry district, or goes
abroad on foreign missions, that some Prot-
estants have advocated celibacy in these cases.
A Presbyterian said not long since to me : ' ' I
do not care about men settled in big cities, like
Calcutta or Pekin, with beautiful homes and
comfortable salaries from America or England.
But I've met some zealous men returning from
a hard mission, with a pale-faced wife and
sickly children, who instead of helping him,
were only a burden on his ministry/'

Digitized by

Celibacy.

487

We must remember also the vast difference
between the duties of the Protestant minister

* and the Catholic priest. As a rule, the minis-
ter preaches but one or two sermons a week,
looks after the Sunday-school, and some few
societies of men and women, and visits his
flock, or certain portions thereof, from time to
time. The Catholic priest, over and above his
preaching, Sunday-school, societies and the
like, is the servant of the people — at their beck
and call every hour of the day and night. He
must spend many a long hour in the confes-
sional, bearing his people's burden of sin and
sorrow ; he must venture out in the cold and
rain and snow, no matter what the distance or
the danger, to administer the last sacraments to
the dying ; he must instruct his people in the
dogmas of faith, and be ready at all times to
answer the questions of outsiders, seeking for
the light; he must advise, correct, and warn,
when there is question of the gospel of Christ,
and he cares for no man when duty is to be
done. He is freer to face danger, because lie
never need question the effect of his actions on
the affections, health, interests, or opinions of
wife and family. How often has the world seen
him speaking the word of comfort to the sick
in the small-pox hospital, as in Philadelphia to-

s day ; hearing the confession of the dying soldier
on the firing-line, a$ American priests in the

Digitized by

488

The Questim Box,

late war with Spain; going from house to
house in the city of the plague, and burying
the dead with his own hands, as the sons of St.
Vincent de Paul did in France in the seven-
teenth century.

Again, the people would not as a rule trust
their secrets to a married clergy. "I believe
in confession,1' said a High-Church Episcopa-
lian once to me, '/just as much as you do.
But I could not go to my minister." " Why ? "
" He might tell his wife." Not that we ques-
tion the honor of such men, but their whole
trend and tendency veto practically their ever
receiving the confidence of any great number
of their flock. The Catholic priest hears the
confessions of thousands. Often, on our Catho-
lic missions, we hear eight and nine hundred
confessions in one week.

We know also of ministers who to support
their families are obliged to engage in secular
business during the week. Surely the soldier
of Christ should be free from this. " No man,
being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with
secular business* ' (II. Tim. ii. 4). Indeed, a
Catholic priest, with all the work that usually
devolves upon him, would find it impossible.
Imagine, too, an hereditary caste, formed in the
Church of God, handing down property from
father to son, and enriching relatives, to the
great harm of the Church ,of God. Something

Digitized by

Celibacy.

489

like this is the actual condition in the Russian
Church, resulting from a married clergy.

Is it not wrong for your Church to impose the
impossible and intolerable burden of celibacy
upon the clergy ?

How can a celibate clergy be chaste ? Is not
celibacy against nature ?

These objections date from Martin Luther,
whose sermon on the universal obligation of
marriage would not bear repetition in any
Christian pulpit of the world -to-day. He fol-
lowed out most exactly his own teaching by
attempting to marry a nun, who broke her en-
closure before breaking her vows.

Celibacy is not impossible, for the grace of
God is given abundantly to his priests to keep
them pure. Would you say that all the unmar-
ried find it impossible to be chaste ? Are your
own unmarried children, sisters, widowed
cousins, maiden aunts, and bachelor uncles im-
pure? Are all husbands who for certain rea-
sons are separated from their wives for a long
period, bound to commit adultery ? The objec-
tion is a libel on the pure character of thou-
sands, clerical and lay, and proceeds from
hearts full of lust, who judge that others are
even as they. Celibacy is not an intolerable
burden, for it is voluntarily chosen by men and
women who are old enough to know what they

Digitized by

490

The Question Box,

are doing, and who feel freer thereby to serve
God and the brethren.

Men have declared it against nature. Would
you then forthwith compel every one to get
married, whether he will or no ? If so unnatu-
ral, why is it that virginity has been admired
and practised all down the centuries, even
among the pagans? Judaea, Greece, Rome,
Gaul, Peru, all bear witness to the fact that
chastity is not unnatural.

Many have pointed to the scandals that have
arisen from time to time. Will any man- dare
say that the married clergy — whether Greek,
Russian, or Protestant — have been freer of scan*
dais than the Catholic priesthood? Will you
abolish marriage because thousands of men and
women have broken their marriage vows?
Voltaire, no lover of Christianity or the clergy,
was forced to write : " The life of secular men
has always been more vicious than that of
priests; but the disorders of the latter have
always been more remarkable, from their con-
trast with the rule." And Dean Maitland:
" In fact, it appears to be the testimony of
history, that the monks and clergy . . .
were in all times and places better than other
people" ("The Dark Ages," preface, p. 8,
John Hodges, 1889).

Did not celibacy originate in the desire of Pope

Digitized by

Celibacy.

491

Gregory VII. to secure a greater control over the
clergy?

No ; celibacy originated by Christ's appoint-
ment, and flows naturally out of the Chris-
tian sense of the dignity of the priesthood ;
and voluntarily entered upon in Apostolic times,
it became the law for the Western Church in
the beginning of the fourth century. Pope
Gregory VII. in the Roman synod of 1074
merely revived the old laws, and enforced their
observance under the severest penalties.

I think priests ought to marry, because the
husband and father develops a finer and kindlier
nature, and gathers experiences which enable
him to teach religion with greater force than the
unmarried.

It is rather strange, in view of law-court sta-
tistics, to declare that the husband and father
necessarily develops a finer and kindlier nature.
What kindlier man than the good old parish
priest, loved by all — old and young, rich and
poor, cultured and uncultured?

Again, whose experience is wider and more
varied than the priest, who is trusted as no
other living man with the secrets of all in the
sacred tribunal of the sacrament of penance?
To say that a priest ought to marry the better
to understand how to teach men well, is about
as sensible as to tell a physician to taste his

Digitized by

492

The Question Box.

every medicine in order to prescribe correctly
for his patients.

Does not God say in the first chapter of Genesis
"increase and multiply "? (Gen. i. 28).

Yes ; but this is said as a general blessing on
the race, and by no means implies that a man
or woman who chooses to remain unmarried
thereby breaks a commandment of God.

Did not St. Paul say that he was married?
" Have we not power to carry about a woman
a sister, as well as the rest of the Apostles and
the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas ? " (I. Cor.
ix. 5).

The Apostle expressly states that he was not
married (I. Cor. vii. 8). The above text by no
means refers to a wife, but, as St. Jerome ex-
plains (Contra Jovinian, i. 14), refers to the
holy women who, according to Jewish custom,
adopted by Christ himself, followed their reli-
gious master about, and ministered to his wants
(Matt, xxvii. 55). (" Was St. Paul married?"
American Catholic Quatterlyy 1890, p. 697.)

Was not St. Peter a married man ?

He undoubtedly was, yet tradition declares
that he did not live with his wife after the
divine call (Jerome, Ep. 48 ad Pammachium) ;
the words of St. Peter to Christ are plain:

•Digitized byLjOOQle

Celibacy.

493

* * Behold we have left all things and have fol-
lowed thee." What matters it, however,
whether he were married or not? We have
undoubtedly the example and the teaching of
"the Saviour and St. Paul as ample warrant for
the discipline of Western Christendom in this
matter.

Why don't priests marry, when St. Paul says :
"To avoid fornication, let every man have his
own wife ? " (I. Cor. vii. 2).

The Apostle is not urging the unmarried to
marry, as our questioner seems to imagine, for
in this very chapter he extols virginity as a
counsel of Christ and a higher state of life {ibid.)
besides urging his own example {ibid.), the
better to serve God {ibid.)

On the contrary, he is exhorting (vv. 2-1 1) '
those already married to fulfil the duties of their
state of life in all purity, to hate adultery, to
shun divorce, polygamy, etc.

Does not the Scriptures say : " It is better to
marry than to burn " ? (I. Cor. vii. 9).

Undoubtedly ; but these words of the Apostle
in no way imply a general prohibition against
celibacy. The Apostle is addressing the un-
married, whom he advises to remain so, if they
feel called, as he was, to follow Christ in the
virgin life, and desire thereby to be freer in

Digitized by

494

The Question Box.

their work for the brethren. '* I say to the un-
married, and to the widow : it is good for them
if they so continue even as I" (w. 8-33).

If, on the contrary, men and women are liv-
ing unmarried, the better to satisfy their lusts,
and subject to carnal thoughts and desires (to
burn), he urges them to marry. " But if they
cannot contain themselves, let them marry.
For it is better to marry than to be burned (to
burn)."

So in like manner to-day the Catholic priest
advises a higher grade of souls to follow out
our Lord's counsel of virginity (" All men take
not this word, but they to whom it is given,"
Matt. xix. 11), but he warns all others to
marry and not to take upon themselves the vow
of virginity, whether in the priesthood or the
cloister.

Do not the Scriptures teach that " it behooveth
a bishop to be the husband of one wife " ? (L
Tim. ill. 2; cf. Tit. i. 6; I. Tim. iii. 12).

Until the fourth century (Council of Elvira,
305 ; Aries, 314 ; and Ancyra, 314) there was
no strict law enforcing celibacy, and therefore
many married men received orders. The texts
in question show not that all deacons and
bishops should be married men — St. Paul him-
self was not — but that no one would be con-
sidered fit for ordination who had been twice

Digitized by

Celibacy.

495

married. Any one conversant with the writings
of the early Church Fathers is fully aware of
their horror of second marriages. Indeed, the
same law against ordaining a widower who has
been twice married exists in the Church to this
day, as proof positive of the ancient Christian
interpretation of this text of Holy Scripture.

Does not St, Paul reckon "forbidding to
marry " as one of the doctrines of the devil ?
(I. Tim, iv. 3)«

St. Paul is denouncing the early Ebionite,
Marcionite, and Manichean heretics who con-
demned marriage as evil in itself, and proceed-
ing from an evil principle. The Catholic
Church has always considered matrimony one
of the seven sacraments of Jesus Christ, and
therefore holy in itself and in all its relations.

D6es not St. Paul say that " marriage is hon-
orable in all " ? (Heb. xiii. 4).

Undoubtedly : but this by no means implies
a command that all should marry. He is
addressing married people, and is urging them
to be true to their vows; " for,* ' he adds,
"fornicators and adulterers God will judge "
(Heb. xiii. 4). He elsewhere explicitly de-
clares that marriage is not honorable when en-
tered into contrary to the law of God or of
God's Church, as in the marriage of the inces-

Digitized by

496 The Question Box.

tuous Corinthian (I. Cor. v. 1-5), and of the con-
secrated widows (I. Tim. v. 11, 12). Marriage
is not honorable for the man or woman who has
voluntarily vowed celibacy, as Martin Luther
had done.

Every student oi history knows that the
Catholic Church has ever been the defender
and guardian of the honor or dignity of the
marriage bond. Leo XIII., in his encyclical
Arcanum, says: " It must be allowed that the
Catholic Church has been of the highest service
to the well-being of all peoples by her constant
defence of the sanctity and perpetuity of mar-
riage, v

4 ' She deserves no small thanks for openly
protesting against the civil laws which offended
so grievously in this matter a century ago ; for
striking with anathema the Protestant heresy
concerning divorce and putting away; con-
demning in many ways the dissolution of mar-
riage common among the Greeks ; for declaring
null and void all marriages entered into on con-
dition of future dissolution ; and, lastly, for re-
jecting, even in the early ages, the imperial
laws in favor of divorce and putting away.
And when the Roman Pontiffs withstood the
most potent princes, who sought with threats
to obtain the Church's approval of their
divorces, they fought not only for the safety
of religion, but even of that of civilization.0

Digitized by

Matrimony.

497

Why are priests allowed to marry in the
East?

Because the Easterns follow Uie legislation
of the Synod of Ancyra, 314 A. d., which gave
permission to deacons to marry after ordination,
provided they had obtained the permission of
their bishops. Celibacy is a question of disci-
pline, not of dogma, so that the Eastern
churches that are united to Rome — for instance,
the Maronites — are still permitted a married
clergy.

The evident intellectual and moral inferiority
of the Eastern compared with the Western
Church proves conclusively the wisdom of the
West in enforcing celibacy. Father Gagarin,
SJ., in his book " I*e Clerge* Russe," gives
such a picture of the degradation of the married
Russian clergy, and its utter lack of influence
over the people, that no one for an instant
would desire to introduce such a state of affairs
into the vigorous, strong clergy of Western
Christendom.

MATRIMONY.
Why will not the Catholic Church allow
divorce ?

Is it not cruel to force a woman to live until
the end with a drunkard or an adulterer ?

Did not Christ expressly permit divorce in
case of adultery ? " Whosoever shall put away

Digitized by

498 The Question Box.

his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall
marry another, committeth adultery; and who
so marrieth her which is put away, doth commit
adultery *9 (Matt. xix. 9),

The absolute prohibition of divorce from the
marriage bond, with the right to marry another,
rests on the express words of Jesus Christ and
His Apostle St. Paul (Trent., Sess. xxiv. can.
7). The words of our Saviour are: " What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man
put asunder. . . . And He saith to them :
Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry
another, committeth adultery against her."
" And if the wife shall put away her husband,
and be married to another, she committeth
adultery" (Mark x. 9-12). " Every one that
putteth away his wife, and marrieth another,
committeth adultery ; and he that marrieth her
that is put away from her husband, committeth
adultery* ' (L,uke xvi. 18).

St. Paul, commenting on these words of our
Saviour, says:

" But to them that are married, not I, but
the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not
from her husband. And if she depart, that she
remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her hus-
band" (I. Cor. vii. 10, 11). "A woman is
bound by the law as long as her husband liveth,
but if her husband die, she is at liberty ; let her
marry to whom she will, only in the Lord"

Digitized by

Matrimony.

499

(ibid. 39). " For the woman that hath an hus-
band, whilst her husband liveth is bound to the
law. But if her husband be dead, she is loosed
from the law of her husband. Therefore,
whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called
an adulteress, if she be with another man ; but
if her husband be dead, she is delivered from
the law of her husband, so that she is not an
adulteress if she be with another man M (Rom.
vii. 2, 3).

Words could not more clearly express the ab-
solute prohibition of divorce with right to
marry again. Nothing but death can dissolve
the marriage bond, which the Saviour now re-
stores to its primitive unity and indissolubility,
abrogating for ever the Mosaic bill of divorce.
To remarry during the life-time of wife or hus-
band is clearly termed adultery by Christ and
the Apostle.

There are two other texts in St. Matthew's
gospel which are frequently cited as granting
the right of divorce in case of adultery ; but a
candid study of these passages will prove that
our Saviour does not contradict his clear teach-
ing elsewhere, "But I say to you, that who-
soever shall put away his wife, excepting for
the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit
adultery ; and he that shall marry her that is
put away, committeth adultery " (Matt. v. 32).
It is clear from these words that no exception

Digitized by

5oo

The Question Box.

is made, for — ist. Our Lord is not speaking
of a man putting away his wile to marry an-
other \ which He expressly forbade as a viola-
tion of the sixth commandment^ in Mark x. n :
"Whosoever shall pnt away his wife, and
marry another, committeth adultery and in
Luke xvi. 18 : " Every one that putteth away
his wife, and marrieth another, committeth
adultery.' 1 2d. He clearly indicates that the
marriage tie is indissoluble, for otherwise how
could he call the remarriage of the repudiated
woman adultery? "He that shall marry her
that is put away, committeth adultery " (Matt*
v. 32).

The other alleged exception is Matt. xix. 9 :
"And I say to you that whosoever shall put
away his wife, except it be for fornication, and
shall marry another, committeth adultery ; and
he that shall marry her that is put away com-
mitteth adultery."

The argument of the defenders of divorce is :
Whoever puts away his wife, except for adul-
tery, and remarries, is an adulterer. Therefore,
whoever puts "away his wife" for adultery,
and remarries, is not an adulterer. The Catho-
lic answers : Why cannot the conditional clause
refer to the words that precede rather than to
those that follow it? Every one must admit
that it is at least doubtful whether the excep-
tion for adultery refers to the right of separa-

Digitized by

Matrimony.

5oi

tiononly or the right to remarry. The Catholic
settles the doubt by having recourse to the
other clear passages of St. Mark, St. Luke, and
St. Paul, and concludes with them that a man
cannot remarry during the life-time of his wife
without becoming an adulterer.

'Hie sense of Matt. xix. 9, then, is : Who-
soever shall put away his wife, which shall not
be lawful except for fornication, and shall
marry another, etc. That this is not a forced
interpretation is clear from the context. Our
Lord is restoring marriage to its primitive
purity ("in the beginning it was not so," ibid.
8) ; He is abrogating the Mosaic bill of divorce,
and elevating marriage to the dignity of a
Christian sacrament, which no human au-
thority can nullify. "What therefore God
hath joined together, let no man put asunder.' '

It is ever & law of Scripture interpretation
that an obscure text should always be ex-
plained in the light of clear and explicit pas-
sages. All doubt on the matter is settled for
the Catholic by the divine, infallible witness of
the Church of God (Trent., Sess. xxiv. can. 7),
which voices the constant tradition of the
Church, and declares the text in question to re-
fer only to separation from bed and board.

Even non-Catholics, who do not regard mar-
riage as a sacrament, have admired the Catholic
Church for her firm stand in this matter ; espe-

Digitized by

502 The Question Box.

cially in our age and country, where all are be-
ginning to realize that the excessive laxity of
our divorce legislation is a menace to the public
good. When, in the sixteenth century, the
Reformers doctrinally denied the sacramental
character of marriage, and in their exercise of re-
ligious authority granted divorces contrary to
the law of Christ, they prepared the way for the
modern disregard of the marriage tie which is
somewhat akin to the notions prevalent among
the pagans in the first centuries of the Roman
Empire.

We know that often in particular cases this
law is hard in its application, although in the
Catholic Church, for adultery, cruelty, and the
like, separation from bed and board is granted,
without, however, the liberty of marrying again.
It is indeed hard to say to a young woman who
has contracted an unhappy marriage, that she
can never marry again as long as her husband
lives. But the law of Christ is clear. And,
moreover, history is the witness that the indi-
vidual ought to yield to the higher interests of
religion and society, which are materially in-
jured by the permission of divorce.

Does not St. Paul allow divorce ? (I. Cor. vii.

fI2-I5).

St. Paul is not speaking of the sacramental
marriage between Christians at all.

Digitized by

Matrimony. 503
1

He says (I. Cor. vii. 15) : "If any brother
have a wife that believeth not, and she consent
to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
And if any woman have a husband that be-
lieveth not, and he consent to dwell with her,
let her not put away her husband. . . .
But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart.
For a brother or sister is not under servitude in
such cases. But God hath called us in peace.' '

The Catholic Church teaches that even by the
law of nature marriage is commonly indissoluble ;
but God can dissolve it, as He did under the
Old Law. The only instance under the New
Law of the dissolution of the bond of natural
marriage is the one here mentioned by St. Paul,
known as the Pauline privilege. If in a mar-
riage between a Christian and one not baptized
the unbeliever refuses to live with the Chris-
tian, or is willing to do so but strives to pervert
or tempt the Christian to mortal sin, the latter,
after having fulfilled- certain conditions laid
down by the Church law, is free to marry
again. But it must be borne in mind that this
refers exclusively to a marriage contracted be-
tween unbaptized persons, one of whom after-
wards becomes a baptized Christian. It then
lies with the party remaining unbaptized as to
whether or npt the marriage shall be made per-

Digitized by

504

The Question Box.

Granted that y^ur Church theoretically forbids
divorce, does not its system of dispensations
practically admit of many exceptions ? I know
personally of divorced Catholics.

No ; as a matter of fact we challenge any one
to point out one divorce ever granted under the
sanction of the Church after the consummation
of a valid marriage. The firm stand of the
Popes in this matter is evidenced in the protest
against divorce by Nicholas I. against Lothair,
by Urban II. and Paschal II. against Philip II.
of France, by Celestine III. and Innocent III.
against Philip II. of France, by Clement VII.
and Paul III. against Henry VIII., and, lastly,
by Pius VII. against Napoleon I. (cf. I^o XIII.,
Encyclical Arcanum).

As guardian of the Sacraments, she claims
the right to make laws affecting their adminis-
tration and reception. Thus she claims exclu-
sive control over the sacrament of marriage, and
besides the divine impediments, over which she
has no power, she, for the good of society, has
established other impediments, some diriment,
which render an attempted marriage invalid,
and others impeding, which, while not affecting
the validity of the marriage, render the con-
tracting parties guilty of grievous sin. Thus,
a marriage of first cousins without a dispensa-
tion would be invalid ; whereas the marriage of
a Catholic to a baptized Protestant before a

Digitized by

Matrimony.

505

minister would be valid, yet the Catholic party-
would thereby commit grievous sin, involving
recourse to the Bishop for pardon.

By the same power wherewith she makes
these laws, the Church, for the good of the in-
dividual or for society, claims the right to dis-
pense therefrom. One can readily conceive
that in some instances the impediment would
be a source of harm rather than of good.

Whenever, therefore, you have met Catholics
who seem to have married again after a divorce,
one of two things is certain : 1st, Either they
are Catholics living outside the pale of their
Church; or, 2d, Their first marriage, which
seemed valid in the eyes of the world, was in-
valid from the beginning because of one of the
diriment impediments of the Church or of God.

Many outsiders realize the wisdom of the
Catholic Church in her impediment laws. Gov-
ernor Rollins, of New Hampshire, declared,
about a year ago, that in a certain town of
Maine, because of marriages between close rela-
tions, there was an imbecile in nearly every
family (Sacred Heart Review, Jan. 6, 1900, p. 4). '

Did not the Pope grant a divorce to the Em-
peror Napoleon? And again in the case of his
son Jerome?

No, the Pope did not grant a divorce in
either case.

Digitized by

506 The Question Box.

ist. Napoleon was married to Josephine de
Beauharnais, March 9, 1796, by a civil cere-
mony only. On December 1, 1804, the day pre-
ceding the coronation of Napoleon, Josephine
mentioned this fact to Pius VII., who had
shared the common belief that she had been
married according to the laws of the Church.
Napoleon, who desired to be free to contract
another marriage in hopes of an heir to the
throne of France, was greatly displeased at this
disclosure. Yet he hoped still to leave a loop-
hole in the religious marriage ceremony, which
was performed on the eve of the coronation by
Cardinal Fesch, by purposely incurring the im-
pediment of clandestinity which required the
presence of the parish priest and two witnesses.
The Pontiff, however, granted to the cardinal
the necessary dispensation from this impedi-
ment, so that the marriage was valid. Thus,
Prince Jerome Napoleon in 1887 (" Napo-
leon and his Detractors ") wrote: " Napo-
leon and Josephine, who had been only civilly
married in the time of the Directory, were
united religiously by Cardinal Fesch, in order
to satisfy the scruples of Josephine, on the eve-
ning preceding the consecration, and in the
presence of Talleyrand and Berthier, in the
chapel of the Tuileries. I know this from the
traditions of my family." The tribunal which
declared the nullity of this marriage, therefore,

Digitized by

Matrimony,

507

acted on false testimony which denied the reli-
gious marriage, and exercised an authority it
did not possess, for the tope is the proper
judge in such cases. The Pope had nothing
whatsoever to do with the case. It never was
brought before him.

2d. As for the marriage of Jerome Bonaparte
with Miss Patterson in 1803, performed by
Bishop Carroll of-Baltimore, it was annulled in
France by a civil decree March 21, 1805. The
Pope, far from recognizing this, pronounced in
a letter to the emperor that the marriage of his
brother Jerome was perfectly valid according to
the laws of the Catholic Church. (Parsons,
" Studies in Church History,* ' vol. v. ch. ii.)

What proof have you that Luther sanctioned
bigamy ?

His permission to the Landgrave, Philip of
Hesse, to take a second wife during the life-
time of the first, and his published writings,
afford ample proof.

Philip of Hesse, a great friend of the Refor-
mation, applied in 1539 to Luther for authority
to marry an additional wife, bigamy being pun-
ishable at that time with death by the German
law. In his letter he cites the example of the
Old I^aw prophets, declares bigamy not forbid-
den by the Old Law and the New, and person-
ally declares it impossible for him to be pure

Digitized by

508

The Question Box.

with only one wife. The I,andgrave had in
mind a published sermon of I^uther, 1527, in
( which he said : " It is not forbidden that a man
should have more than one wife. I could not
forbid it to-day. But I would not advise it."
(C/. Luther's complete works, vol. xxxiii. p. 322
et seg.) This permission was granted on condi-
tion that it be kept secret (De Wette, Luther's
letters, etc., vol. v. pp. 237 et seg.), and Philip
was married March 4, 1540, to Margaret Von
Sala by Melander, himself a minister with three
wives living (Janssen, " History of the German
People," vol. iii. p. 408). When the matter be-
came public, L,uther, on the principle that the end
justifies the means, declared it lawful to deny
the fact of the marriage. "What would it
matter if, for the sake of greater good and of the
Christian Church, one were to tell a big lie? "
(Janssen, iii. 432). On this question read,
"Luther: An Historical Portrait," J. Verres,
ch. xxi. p. 312-329.

MIXED MARRIAGES.

Why is the Catholic Church so bitterly opposed
to the marriage of Catholics with Protestants?

If you consider it wrong, why do you grant
a dispensation for money?

What does your Church require of me — a Prot-
estant— if I marry a Catholic girl ? Must I be
baptized and join your Church?

Digitized by

Mixed Marriages. 509

* Can a Catholic and Protestant be married first
by a priest, and afterwards by a minister to
please the husband's Protestant parents?

Why is not the marriage celebrated in the
church ?

The Catholic Church has always disapproved
of mixed marriages, because : 1st. The Catholic
party is in great danger of losing the faith.
How frequently a strong-minded unbeliever,
who daily ridicules all that a Christian woman
holds dear, or a bigoted Protestant, who only
manifests his hatred of the Catholic religion
after marriage, is the cause of the apostasy of
a weak-minded, indevout, and ill-instructed wo-
man. In a non-Catholic environment, as in the
Southern States, many such souls have drifted
away from the Church. 2d. The possibility of
the children being reared non-Catholics. How
often the Catholic party dies, and the non-Cath-
olic marries again, bringing up all the children
in an alien faith. Moreover, the example of an
unbelieving, indiflFerentist, or Catholic-hating
parent will have a pernicious influence upon
the children, unless counteracted in strong
measure by the other parent, the Church and
the school. Add to this the fact that many men
refuse to allow their children to be baptized in
the Catholic faith, despite their written promise
to that eflect. 3d. The unhappiness that often
follows in the train of such marriages* The

Digitized by

The Question Box.

non-Catholic, too, may at any time secure a
divorce and remarry, while the Catholic cannot
do so without grievous sin. 4th. The essen-
tially distinct moral principles regarding the
marriage relations held by Protestants generally
and Catholics, with regard to divorce, abor-
tion, the limiting of the family.

The Catholic Church grants a dispensation
from the ecclesiastical law forbidding mixed
marriages, because she hopes in certain par-
ticular cases that these evils may be obviated.
She lays down three conditions : 1st. Both par-
ties must promise that all the children be reared
in the Catholic faith. 2d. The non-Catholic
must promise not to interfere in any way with
the religious life of the Catholic. 3d. The
Catholic must promise to do everything possible
— by prayer, good example, and persuasion —
to bring the non-Catholic to the true faith.

Dispensations are never granted for anything
which is absolutely wrong or sinful, or against
the divine law. They cannot be bought, but
the stipends paid are simply fines imposed
only on those who can readily pay them for the
exception to the ordinary law of the Church.
The money obtained in this way is devoted to
the support of religion and to charitable pur-
poses ; the poor are granted dispensations gratis.

The general law in this country — it is differ-
ent abroad — which forbids the celebration of

Digitized by

Mixed Marriages.

5ii

such marriages in the church, the blessing of the
parties and the ring, is witness of the Church's
disapproval.

If the Catholic party consents to a first or a
second marriage by a minister, he is guilty of
a public denial of the faith, and is cut off" from
all share in the sacraments of the Church. To
take part in a false worship is regarded as prac-
tical apostasy. Indeed, this manner of proceed-
ing is irrational. For if the Protestant regards
the first marriage binding, why then go through
a meaningless ceremony ; if invalid by his refus-
ing to give consent, is it honest to deceive the
priest, who would be bound to refuse acting as
witness to a mock marriage?

In countries where the civil law refuses to
recognize the Catholic marriage as legal, the
parties are allowed to go through the formality
of a so-called civil marriage before a state offi-
cial to insure their civil privileges. This en-
forced appearance before the magistrate, how-
ever, has no religious significance whatsoever.

Does the Catholic Church regard the marriage
of Protestants valid, or can a Protestant be di-
vorced and marry again on entering your
Church ?

Two baptized Protestants (for instance, a
Methodist and a Lutheran), who are married
without being subject to any of the diriment

Digitized by

512

The Question Box,

impediments of the Church, are as validly mar-
ried as two Catholics, for they receive the sacra-
ment of matrimony, which binds until death.
The Catholic Church has no power to dispense
in the divine law, which absolutely prohibits
divorce.

Do you recognize as valid a marriage per-
formed by a Protestant minister or justice of the
peace?

Yes, if otherwise valid — that is, if no diri-
ment impediment exists — for the minister of the
sacrament is not the priest or minister, but the
contracting parties themselves. If, however, a
Catholic is married before any one but a priest,
he is guilty of the grievous sins of disobedience,
scandal, and practical denial of the faith, so
that the Church has severely legislated against
this, excommunicating the guilty party and re-
fusing absolution until recourse has been had to
the Bishop of the diocese.

The good Catholic will always be married by
the priest, whose duty it is to safeguard his
people from contracting illicit or invalid mar-
riages.

Frequently, too, a Catholic who is married
before a minister or justice contracts an invalid
marriage, because the non-Catholic had never
been baptized.

Digitized by

Extreme Unction,

513

Why are Catholics forbidden to marry in Lent ?

The Council of Trent (Seas, xxiv., De
Reform., c. 10) forbade the public solemniza-
tion of marriage — that, is with a nuptial Mass,
etc. — in Lent and Advent, because these are
times of fasting and penance. Private mar-
riages are not forbidden, although the Catholic
people are strongly advised to observe the spirit
of the Church's law by marrying outside the
penitential season.

EXTREME UNCTION.

Why do priests anoint Catholics with oil when
they are dying ? Does not the text of James v.
14, 15 refer merely to the miraculous powers for
healing in the early Church ? (I. Cor. xii. 9, 28,
30).

Because it is a sacrament instituted by Jesus
Christ whereby, according to the Scripture, the
sick being anointed with oil, in danger of death,
and prayed over, receive, if necessary, the remis-
sion of sins, the strengthening of the soul, and,
if it be God's will, the restoration of health.
" Is any man sick among you, let him bring in
the priests of the Church, and let them pray
over him, anointing him with oil in the name of
the Lord ; and the prayer of faith shall save the
sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up ; and

Digitized by

514

The Question Box.

if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him"
(James v. 14, 15).

We have here all the essentials of a sacra-
ment, the outward sign — that is, the anointing
with oil and prayer — the inward grace, in the
saving and raising up of the sick man, and the
forgiveness of sins. Although there is no men-
tion of the institution of the sacrament in the
Bible, the Apostolic practice is proof positive,
together with the Church's infallible witness
(Trent, Sess. xiv., De Ext. Unc.),of its institu-
tion by the Saviour. How indeed, in virtue of
the clear words of St. James, can Bible Prot-
estants entirely reject this sacrament?

The passage in St. James does not refer
merely to the gift of healing, which many who
were not priests possessed, but to a sacrament
which not only performed cures in certain cases,
but also Jorgave sin through the ministry of the
priesthood alone. Only Jesus Christ could give
to an anointing with oil the power of remitting
sins; the gift of healing wars by no means coin-
cident with the power of pardoning. (For the
Fathers cf. " Faith of Catholics,0 vol. iii. pp.
206-210.) 1

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and t fie Saints. 515

THE BLESSED VIRGIN AND THE
SAINTS.

What justification is there for your adoration
of the Virgin ?
Do Catholics adore the Virgin Mary?

No ; Catholics adore God alone. They love
and honor Mary as the Mother of God and the
greatest of His saints, but they know she is only
a creature, and that therefore to adore her would
be idolatry. " We adore no saints, 99 wrote St.
Epiphanius in the fourth century. * ' . . . Let
Mary, then, be honored, but the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost alone be adored19 (Adv. Colly-
rid, 1. xxix.)

This accusation of idolatry, met even to-day
so frequently in small country towns, although
rarely in our large cities, where non-Catholics
have more opportunity of unlearning the lies of
the Reformation, was in the beginning a delib-
erately dishonest charge, the better to cloak the
robbery of the riches of the churches and mon-
asteries in England and on the Continent. It
is rather interesting, in view of the modern
High-Church party movement in the Church of
England, to read its Second Homily " against
the peril of idolatry and the worshipping of
images," and to think of the eight hundred
years of so-called idolatry which preceded the
pretended Reformation. Misrepresentation, cal-

Digitized by

5i6

The Question - Box,

umny, pulpit declamation, forged catechisms,
mistranslations of the sacred text (Col. iii. 5,
Eph. v. 5, II. Cor. vi. 16, I. John v. 21, I. Cor.
x. 7), and of the word 1 ' invocare 99 used by the
Council of Trent, — these were the means em-
ployed to keep alive the stupid charge of idola-
try, which many sincere Protestants to-day con-
fess they are heartily ashamed of. (Northcote,
" Mary in the Gospels " ; Nicolas, " The Virgin
Mary ' ' ; Newman, ' * Anglican Difficulties, ' f
vol. ii. ; Livius, "The Blessed Virgin in the
Fathers"; Petilalot, "The Virgin Mother/')

Does your Church believe the Virgin Mary to
be like God, everywhere preseat ?

Not at all; omnipresence is an attribute of
God alone. We learn from the Scriptures that
the saints of God know what happens here on
earth, and offer our prayers to God. They
most likely see our actions and hear our prayers
in God and through God, whom they see face
to face (I. Cor. xiii. 12). How they know,
matters but little to the Christian. The power
of the Blessed Virgin or the saints to answer
our prayers no more implies omnipresence than
my power to accede to the request of a friend
three thousand miles away implies my presence
in that place. When Eliseus saw the ambush
prepared for the king of Israel, was he neces-
sarily in Syria at the time? (IV. Kings vi. 9).

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 5 1 7

By no means. So God can reveal our prayers
to His mother and the saints in heaven as
readily as He can. give His revelations to His
saints on earth.

Can a human being be the mother of the eter-
nal God?

Why do you call the Virgin Mary the mother
of God?

Because she is the mother of the divine per-
son, Jesus Christ, who is true God and true
man. "And whence is this to me, that the
mother of my Lord should «come to me?"
(Luke i. 43; cf. i. 35). "His Son, who was
made to Him of the seed of David, according to
the flesh' ' (Rom. i. 3). "God sent His Son,
made of a woman" (Gal. iv. 4).

Many Protestants, unaware of the true doc-
trine of the Incarnation, call the Blessed Virgin
the mother of Jesus, and not the mother of God,
as though our Saviour existed in a twofold per-
sonality— human and divine. The Catholic
doctrine, however, is that the Second Person of
the Blessed Trinity, in His divine nature eter-
nally begotten of the Father, took to Himself
from the womb of His Virgin Mother a human
nature of the same substance as hers; and
therefore the mother of that divine person,
Jesus Christ, the God-man, is in very truth the
mother of God.

Digitized by

5i8

The Question Box.

As our mothers are not called the mothers of
our bodies, but simply our mothers, because the
soul which is directly created by God is united
with the body in one human personality, so the
Blessed Virgin is not called the mother of Jesus
— that is, of the human nature alone — but sim-
ply the mother of God, because the divine na-
ture which is eternally begotten of the Father
is united with the human nature in one divine
personality.

Strange indeed, too, I have met Episcopa-
lians who in one breath admitted the authority
of the first six General Councils, and yet in the
next denied the divine maternity which was ex-
pressly declared by the Third Ecumenical
Council of Ephesus, in 431, against the Nesto-
rians. Strange, again, that the followers of
Luther and Calvin seem unaware of the fact
that both of these reformers never questioned
Mary's claim to be called the Mother of God.
(Luther, " Deutsche Schriften," vol. xlv. p.
250; Calvin, "Com. sur Thar. Evang., p. 20.)

Why do you pay so much honor to the Blessed
Virgin, when she was only an ordinary woman
on earth?

The Blessed Virgin was not an ordinary wo-
man. Would the Father, having the choice of
countless millions, create an ordinary woman to
be the mother of His only begotten Son ? It is

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 519

preposterous even to imagine it. On the con-
trary, she is the most extraordinary of women,
before whom the greatest saints of the Old Law
and the New, pale as do the stars at the rising
of the sun.

We honor her as the masterpiece of God —
whom God honored, indeed, above all creatures
in her divine maternity. An ordinary woman ?
Why the prophet Isaias tells of her (Isa. vii. 14)
coming ; the court of heaven sends an embassy
to her (Luke i. 26) and to her spouse Joseph
(Matt. i. 20); the Angel Gabriel salutes her
with the words "Hail, full of grace, the Lord
is with thee ; blessed art thou among women* *
(Luke i. 28) ; her cousin St. Elizabeth greets
her, * 1 Blessed art thou among women, 1 and
blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence
is this to me, that the mother of my Lord
should come tome?" (/£., 43); and Mary her-
self prophesies truly : " Behold from henceforth
all generations shall call me blessed " (/£., 48).
Are not we therefore, who daily fulfil this
prophecy, stamped thereby as belonging to the
generations of God's people? Must we not
love her who was close to Christ from Bethle-
hem to Golgotha ? Must we not love the Virgin
Mother of God, immaculately conceived and
sinless, who shows the world what human na-
ture is capable of through the grace of God,
who teaches men the dignity of motherhood

Digitized by

520

The Question Box.

and the purity of virginity, which the pagans
of those days had forgotten? I could never
understand why Protestants seem so jealous of
the love we have for the sweet Mother of God.
I never could understand how men hoped to ex-
tol the Christ by belittling the mother He loved
so dearly. Every true child resehts bitterly the
slightest disrespect to a beloved mother. Is
Christ, the Son of God, an exception to the law
He himself planted in the hearts of men?

God could no more be jealous of the love we
have for Mary, the masterpiece of His creation,
than an artist jealous of the picture he painted,
or an author jealous of the book he had
written.

Do not the terms applied to the Virgin in
Catholic prayer-books border on blasphemy?
She is sometimes called "the only] hope of
Christians,,, "the mother of grace,' 9 etc.? One
prayer says : " Mary, command thy Son ! "

We readily grant that some expressions in
Catholic prayer-books or books of devotion are
literally inexact and exaggerated ; but there is
no semblance of blasphemy, for every Catholic
knows perfectly their true sense. We must in
all honesty carefully distinguish the language
of devotion from the language of dogma. To
the unprejudiced the exaggeration, if there be
any, will always be manifest, and the accuracy

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints, 521

of dogma may be easily obtained by consulting
a catechism or a manual of theology.

Often the impassioned words characteristic of
the Italian or Spaniard may be distasteful to the
colder and less imaginative Englishman or
American. The expressions of an ardent lover
to his sweetheart may not all be literally true,
for warmth of feeling often begets exaggeration
in language. But who would cavil thereat, and
ask the lover always to speak in cold, matter-of-
fact terms ? Must there be no warmth in the
expression of our love of the saints of God?

Speaking of these expressions of devotion,
Ruskin says that they " are rather poetical effu-
sions than serious prayers ; the utterances of
imaginative enthusiasm rather than reasonable
conviction. And as such, they are rather to be
condemned as illusory and fictitious than as
idolatrous ; nor even as such condemned alto-
gether, for strong love and faith are often the
roots of them, and the errors of affection are
better than the accuracies of apathy" ("The
Stones of Venice,1 ' vol. ii. p. 390, appendix 10).
We read in the Scripture (Josue x. 14) of " the
I/)rd obeying the voice of a man." Now, this
does not mean a real obedience, but God's
readiness to hear the prayer of Josue.

To say that Mary commands God is heretical
doctrine (decree of the Roman Inquisition, Feb.
28, 1875). If the expression is used, it merely

Digitized by

522

The Question Box,

implies that out of His great love for His
mother, Jesus Christ is ever ready to hear her
prayer. Every country has its peculiar idioms,
which a foreigner must master ; so the Church
has her idioms, which non-Catholics should
learn before they find fault. (Newman, "An-
glican Difficulties," vol. ii. pp. 89-117; Ganss,
" Mariolatry," Ave Maria Press.)

Does not the Catholic devotion to Mary as a
matter of fact detract from the worship due to
Christ?

On the contrary, it is an historical fact that
the Catholic Church, which has always cher-
ished a great love for the Mother of Christ, has
ever been the great defender of the divinity of
Jesus Christ, her Son. Outside her fold, thou-
sands of nominally Christian ministers and peo-
ple deny the divinity of the Son of God, be-
cause, among other reasons, their forefathers lost
the true sense of the unique dignity of that
Son's Blessed Mother.

"If we look through Europe,' 9 writes Car-
dinal Newman, "we shall find, on the whole,
that just those nations and countries have lost
their faith in the divinity of Christ who have
given up devotion to His Mother, and that
those, on the other hand, who had been fore-
most in her honor, have retained their ortho-
doxy. Contrast, for instance, the Calvinists

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 523

with the Greeks, or France with the North of
Germany, or the Protestant and Catholic com-
munions in Ireland* ' ("Difficulties of Angli-
cans," vol. ii. p. 92).

All prayer to Mary indeed is virtually and
ultimately prayer to God. Love of her, by its
very nature, carries us to the love of God,
whose masterpiece she is. Strangers at times
have entered our churches and been scandal-
ized at what they deemed an excessive manifes-
tation of devotion on the part of our people,
who were praying devoutly before some statue
of the Blessed Virgin. They forget, however,
that on the altar is Jesus Christ really present,
and that during « Mass in the early morning
those same devout souls 'have knelt in adoration
to Him alone. Catholics ever make an infinite
difference between their love for the Son and
the Mother, realizing perfectly that all her
graces and privileges are from Him. If some
words or expressions of our devotional writings
Seem to contradict this, let the objector remem-
ber that it is unreasonable to insist that a devo-
tional tract be couched in the accuracy of dog-
ma. Love never expresses itself in the exact
language of a mathematical formula.

Did not the adoration of the Virgin in the Middle
Ages tend to encourage harmful superstition, by
overshadowing entirely the mediatorship of Christ?

Digitized by

524

The - Question Box,

There has never been any adoration of the
Virgin in the Catholic Church. In the fourth
\ century the heresy of the Collyridians, who
paid her divine honors, was expressly con-
demned by the Fathers of the time; for in-
stance, St. Epiphanius (Adv. Collyridians).
The love and reverence for the Mother of God
which characterized the ages of faith helped
greatly to keep the doctrine of the Incarnation
free from all taint of heresy, and also in the
days of chivalry begot a spirit of respect for
woman, which could not but be beneficial in its
influence on the fierce manners of the period.

This many Protestants and unbelievers, free
from controversial bias, have been forced to ad-
mit. "The world,* ' writes the rationalist
Lecky, " is governed by ideals, and seldom or
never has there been one which has exercised
a more salutary influence than the mediaeval
conception of the Virgin' 9 (" Rationalism in
Europe,1 ' ch. iii. p. 234). . . . 4 * There
is, I think, little doubt that the Catholic rever-
ence for the Virgin has done much to elevate
and purify the ideal woman, and to soften the
manners of men" (" History of European
Morals,' 9 vol. ii. p. 389).

The Middle Ages had too perfect a knowl-
edge of the unique mediatorship of Jesus Christ,
who alone " gave himself a redemption for all 99
(I. Tim. ii. 6), ever to put a creature in the

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints, 525

place of God. Instead of encouraging super-
stition, the Catholic love for Mary has ever
been " productive of true holiness of life and
purity of character' y (Ruskin, " Fors Clavi-
gera," letter 41), by holding up her example
for imitation and showing what human nature
is capable of by the grace of God.

Is not the high place the Virgin holds in your
Church due to the exaggerations of the mediaeval
mind ?

No, the true dignity of Mary was appreciated
from the beginning by all Christians who knew
her as the Mother of God. For the witness of
the early Fathers, and the catacomb frescoes
and paintings, consult: Newman's "l,etter to
Pusey"; Livius, " The -Blessed Virgin in the
Fathers" ; Shahan, "The Blessed Virgin in
the Catacombs."

Did not Christ speak harshly to Mary, when
He sai(l (John ii. 4), " Woman, what have I to do
with thee ? "

The milder Catholic version is also the more
accurate one : "Woman, what is it to thee and
to me?" How could men imagine for a mo-
ment that the sweet Saviour of men could ev^r
speak rudely to His own mother? Do we re-
spect any son who treats the mother who bore
him with disrespect? The title "woman" in
the East is one of the greatest reverence, as we

Digitized by

526 The Question Box,

learn from its frequent use by our Lord himself
(Matt, xv. 28 ; Luke xiii. 12 ; John iv. 21, viii.
10, xix. 26, xx. 13, 15).

Would He, for instance, speak harshly to
His mother when commending her to the care
of His beloved disciple, John: " Woman, be-
hold thy son " ? (John xix. 26). So, many Prot-
estant scholars, French, Alford, Edersheim, and
others, admit to-day that the old controversial
use of this passage, to prove Christ's harshness
to His mother, arose merely from ignorance.
Thus, Dr. Westcott, commenting on this text,
says : * * In the word woman there is not the
least tinge of reproof or severity. The address
is that of courteous respect, even tenderness.' '

The phrase "what is it to me and to thee"
cannot convey any rebuke, for He immediately
afterwards works the miracle she requests
(Ganss, " Mariolatry " ; American Cath. Quar-
terly, 1895, p. 399).

Did not Christ evidently make little of His
mother when, at the cry of the woman in the
crowd calling Mary blessed, He said : " Yea,
rather, blessed are they that hear the word of
God and keep it " ? (Luke xi. 28).

By no means. For "if in Christ's 'yea,
rather ■' He be supposed to deprecate His
mother's cultus, He must no less be supposed
to deprecate His own ; for the woman in the

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 527

crowd 'primarily extolled Him, and His mother
only for His sake" (Ryder, "Catholic Contro-
versy/ * p. 107).

Does not Luke viii. 20, ax, clearly show that
Christ showed no special honor to Mary ? (Matt*
xii. 46-50).

I quote the commentary of St. Ambrose:
"He did not mean to reject the attentions of
His mother; for He Himself commands, Let
whosoever dishonors father or mother, die the
death ; but He acknowledges Himself obliged
rather to attend to the mysteries of His Father
than to indulge maternal affection. His mother
is not disowned here, as some heretics insidiously
pretend; even from the cross He acknowledges
her" (John xix. 26, 27).

It shows a very imperfect grasp of the infinite
perfection of the All- Perfect Son of God, to
imagine for an instant that He could show the
slightest disrespect to His own most blessed
mother. What greater honor than to have been
subject to her for thirty years in the seclusion
of the home at Nazareth? {American Cath.
Quarterly, 1894, p. 712.)

Why do you pray to the Virgin Mary, when
the Bible says nothing about it ?

Is not the intercession of Christ all-sufficient?
"We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus
Christ the righteous " (I. John ii. 1). Did not

Digitized by

528

The Question Box,

the Saviour say: "No man cometh to the
Father, but by Me? " (John xiv. 6) ; and again,
"Come unto Me, all ye that labor"? (Matt,
xi. 28).

Why call her mediator, when the Bible says
that Christ is the only Mediator ? (I. Tim. ii. 5).

The fact of intercessory prayer — the power
and desire of the Saints to help us — is evidenced
in both the Old Testament and the New
(Gen. xviii.; Exod. xvii.; Job xlii.; Tob. xii.
12; Zach. i. 12; Rom. xv. 30; Eph. vi. 18;
I. Thess. v. 25; James v. 16).

Our Lord's intercession is unique; as the
Divine Incarnate Word He is, as the Apostle
tells us (I. Tim. ii. 5), the one Mediator of jus-
tice. The mediatorship of the Saints is of
grace and prayer, helping us through the Medi-
atorship of Jesus Christ.

Among the saints, the Blessed Virgin be-
cause of her supereminent dignity as Mother
of God holds the first place ; and because of her
intimate association with her Son in the re-
demption of mankind, her power with Him is
naturally the greatest.

Catholics believe that no one can come to the
Father save through Jesus Christ ; and the
Council of Trent declares anathema upon all
those who deny His unique Mediatorship.
Catholics answer His appeal " Come unto Me"
more than rron-Catholics in the close union ot

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 529

Holy Communion, whereby " they abide in
Him and He in them" (John vi. 57).

The Blessed Virgin no more interferes with
our access to Christ than the pipe which carries
water from the reservoir prevents that water
entering into our houses. She merely unites
her most powerful prayers to our weak petitions,
and the heart of her Son is moved to answer,
even as astern judge might hearken to the ap-
peal of a criminaPs mother to soften the sen-
tence against her boy. Her power is thus de-
scribed by Cardinal Newman :

"Her presence is above, not on earth; her
office is external, not within us ; . . . her
power is indirect. It is her prayers that avail,
and they are effectual by the fiat of Him who is
our all in all. Nor does she hear us by any in-
nate power, or by any personal gift; but by His
manifestation to her of the prayers which we
make to her. When Moses was on the ftfount,
the Almighty told him of the idolatry of his
people at the foot of it, in order that he might
intercede for them ; and thus it is the Divine
Presence which is the intermediating Power by
which we reach her, and she reaches us 99 (Let-
ter to Dr. Pusey, p. 89).

Do you mean by the Immaculate Conception
that the Virgin Mary had nfo father ?

Does not the Bible teach: "As in Adam all
die" ? (I. Cor. xv. 22). '

Digitized by

530 The Question Box.

Did Catholics believe this doctrine prior to
1854?

What shadow of truth is there for this teach-
ing?

We do not believe that the Blessed Virgin
was conceived by the Holy Ghost like her Di-
vine Son (Luke i. 35), but, on the contrary,
that she was conceived and born as the other
children of Adam, of human parents,. the saint-
ly Joachim and Anne.

Many rationalistic or " liberal* ' Protestants
refuse to accept this dogma because they reject,
with the unbeliever, the dogma of original sin.
The orthodox Protestant, moreover, finds a dif-
ficulty because of his erroneous idea of original
sin. Says Cardinal Newman on this point:

" Our doctrine of original sin is not the same
as the Protestant doctrine. Original sin with
us cannot be called sin, in the mere ordinary
sense of the word sin ; it is a term denoting
Adam's sin as transferred to us, or the state to
which Adam's sin reduces his children ; but by
Protestants it seems to be understood as sin, in
much the same sense as actual sin. We, with
the Fathers, think of it as something negative —
^ Protestants as something positive. Protestants
hold that it is a disease, a radical change of
nature, an active poison internally corrupting
the soul, infecting its primary elements, and
disorganizing it ; and they fancy that we ascribe

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 531

a different nature from ours to the Blessed Vir-
gin, different from that of her parents, and from
that of fallen Adam.

" We hold nothing of the kind ; we consider
that in Adam she died, as others ; that she was
includecj, together with the whole race, in
Adam's sentence ; that she incurred his debt as
we do ; but that, for the sake of Him who was
to redeem her and us upon the cross, to her the
debt was remitted by anticipation ; on her the
sentence was not carried out, except indeed as
regards her natural death, for she died when
her time came, as others.

" All this we teach, but we deny that she had
original sin ; for by original sin we mean, as I
have already said, something negative, viz.,
this only, the deprivation of that supernatural,
- unmerited grace which Adam and Eve had on
their first formation — deprivation and the conse-
quences of deprivation.

* * Mary could not merit, any more than they,
the restoration of that grace : but it was re-
stored to her by God's free bounty from and at
the very first moment of her existence, and
thereby, in fact, she never came under the orig-
inal curse, which consisted in the loss of it"
("Difficulties of Anglicans," vol. ii. pp. 48-49).

The Bull Ineffabilis of Pius IX., December,
1854, declares "that the doctrine which holds
that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the very first

Digitized by

532

The Question Box,

instance of her conception, by a singular grace
and privilege of the Omnipotent God, in virtue
of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of
mankind, was preserved free from all stain of
original sin, has been revealed by God, and
therefore should firmly and constantly be be-
lieved by all the faithful.' '

It is false to call this a new teaching, for the
feast of the Immaculate Conception had been
celebrated since the seventh century, and the
Fathers of the first five centuries either imply
her absolute sinlessness, or set it forth in ex-
press terms. Thus St. Ephrem, in a passage of
his Carmina JVzszbena, first discovered and pub-
lished in 1866 : " Verily indeed Thou and Thy
Mother, alone are you, in being in every
respect altogether beautiful. For in Thee,
I/)rd, is no spot, nor any stain in Thy Mother "
(Iyivius, " Blessed Virgin in the Fathers," p.
232). This dogma was not defined until the
year 1854, but definition does not create a dog-
ma, but puts it for ever out of the domain of
controversy, as giving a divine, infallible wifc
ness to its truth.

The Scriptures also, viewed in the clear light
of patristic interpretation which ever regards
Mary as the second Eve, declare th§ enmity
between Mary and Satan absolute and lasting :
" I will put enmities between thee and the
woman, and thy seed and her seed ; she shall

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 533

crush thy head" (Gen. iii. 15. Cf. loc. cit.t
pp. 35-59). The words of the Angel Gabriel,
"Hail, full of grace/ ' are true in their fullest
absolute sense only if we believe the Blessed
Virgin to have been immaculately conceived.

Why do Catholics claim that the Virgin Mary
never committed sin, when the Bible says : " If
we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves,
and the truth is not in us" ? (I. John i. 8).

Because the Catholic Church, the infallible
interpreter of Holy Scripture, declares that she
was kept sinless her life long by a special favor
of God (Council of Trent, Sess. vi. c. 23). This
was the doctrine of the early Church, as one
may read in Father L,ivius> " The Blessed Vir-
gin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries,"
ch. iv. pp. 229-245.

To quote St. Augustine: "Now, with the
exception of the Holy Virgin Mary, touching
whom, out of respect to our Lord, when we are
on the subject of sins, I have no mind to enter-
tain the question, " etc. (De nat. et grat., c. 41).
Cardinal Newman discusses some passages of
the Fathers which are cited to the contrary in
vol. ii. of "Difficulties of Anglicans," pp. 128^
152.

Even some Protestant writers (Dietlein, * * Evan-
gelisches Ave Maria,' 9 p. 3) have granted that,
in view of her unique and supereminent dignity

Digitized by Google

534 The Question Box.

as Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin should be
exempt from the slightest stain of sin.

The text in question should no more prevent
our believing in Mary's sinlessness, than the
text " who only hath immortality " (I. Tim. vi.
1 6) prevents our believing in the immortality of
angels and of men.

How can you claim that Mary was always a
virgin, when the Scriptures speak so frequently
of the "brethren of the Lord"? (Matt. xii.
46-50; Matt. xiii. 55-56,? Mark iii. 3i-35>
vi. 3 ; Luke viii. 19-21 ; John ii. 12, vii. 3-10 ;
Acts i. 14).

The word brother is used in the Hebrew and
in all languages in a general sense, and there-
fore by no means necessarily implies children of
the same parent. In the Old Testament it is
applied to any relation, viz., nephew (Gen. xiv.
16, xiii. 8, xii. 5), uncle (Gen. xxix. 15), hus-
band (Cant. iv. 9) , one of the same tribe (II.
Kings xix. 12), of the same people (Ex. ii. 21),
an ally (Amos i. 9), any friend (II. Kings i.
26), one of the same office (III. Kings ix.

13).

To determine, therefore, the meaning of the
word in the gospel texts, we must trust that
most generally received tradition, handed down
by St. Jerome and St. Augustine, which is,
that the father of James was Alpheus (Cleophas)

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 535

and his mother Mary, sister of the Blessed Vir-
gin, and his brothers Jude, Joseph, and Simon ;
the " brethren" of the Lord were therefore the
first \ cousins of Jesus. (Compare Matt, xxvii.
56, 61, xxviii. 1 ; Mark xv. 40, 47, xvi. 1 ; and
John xix. 25.)

The early Church held most firmly to the
perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin, as
we learn from the condemnation of Helvidius,
Jovinian, and other heretics of the fourth cen-
tury by the synods of Rome (a. d. 381) and
Capua (a. d. 392). The Council of Later an in
A. d. 649 finally voiced the infallible witness of
the Catholic Church, so that the Catholic is not
left to the mere, conjecture of private opinion.
Indeed, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Beza
among the Reformers, besides many Protestant
writers to-day, deny as emphatically as any
Catholic that the Blessed Virgin had any other
children. (Q. Lange, Alexander, Grotius,
Lightfoot, Westcott, Bloomfield, Trench, Bright,
Kuinoel, Koster, and Mill, quoted by Rev.
Henry G. Ganss, " Mariolatry," p. 38; Fouard,
"Life of Christ, " vol. i., appendix v.; P. Cor-
luy, "Les Fr£res de N. S. Jesus Christ";
Jaugey, Diet. Apol., 1303-1308.)

Our Lord, dying on the cross, commended
His mother to the care of His beloved disciple,
St. John (John xix. 26, 27). He would not
have done this if she had children of her own.

Digitized by VjQOQ LC

536 The Question Box.

Does not St. Matthew say : " And knew her
not till she brought forth her first born son"?
(i. 25). And yet you claim that she had no
other children!

The word "first born" by no means implies
other children, for the law regarding the first
born (Exod. xxxiv. 19, 20) was binding at
once, whether there were other children or not.
Again, we find Machir, the only son of Ma-
nasses, called the first born (Josue xvii. 1 ) . The
words " not till " mean, not till then nor after;
as, for example, Gen. viii. 6, 7 : " Noe, opening
the window of the ark, sent forth a raven,
which went forth and did not return, till the
waters were dried up upon the earth" — i.e.,
never returned.

What proof is there of Mary's ascension into
heaven ?

Catholics believe that this doctrine accords
with the supereminent dignity of the Mother of
God, whose body her Divine Son would not
allow to see corruption; and the fact of the
feast of the Assumption having been celebrated
since the sixth century, and the general belief
of Catholics the world over to-day, render the
denial of this teaching rash, although it has not
yet been defined as a dogma of faith. (Wil-
helm-Scannell, "Manual of Theology," vol. ii.
p. 218 et seq.)

Digitized by 'Google

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 537

Why do uneducated people count beads?
Does not the counting prevent real prayer?
Why ten prayers to the Virgin and only one
to God?

. Why do you make the people repeat mechani-
cal prayers on the Rosary without any warrant in
the Bible ?

The Rosary is a simple method of prayer,
consisting of the repetition of the Our Father
and ten Hail Marys, five or fifteen times. It
is not for the uneducated alone, being used
with profit by all classes.

It was originally, a devotion of the faithful in
the Middle Ages, who, unable to read the
psalter, used to recite the Our Father and Hail
Mary instead of each psalm, while the monks
chanted the divine office in choir. The same
custom is also recorded of St. Paul, the first her-
mit, in the fourth century. It owes its present
form to the Dominicans of the thirteenth cen-
tury, and is to-day one of the chief devotions of
Catholics.

Its fifteen mysteries — the Annunciation, the
Visitation, the Nativity, the Presentation, the
Finding in the Temple, the Agony, the Scourg-
ing, the Crowning with Thorns, the Carrying
of the Cross, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection,
the Ascension, the Descent of the Holy Ghost,
the Assumption, and the Coronation of the
Blessed Virgin — present a beautiful summary

Digitized by

538

The Question Box.

of the gospels to the devout meditation of loving
souls.

It is natural that in a devotion especially
hers, the major portion of the prayers should be
addressed directly to the Blessed Virgin.
Catholics know full well that in honoring the
Mother of God they necessarily honor God,
whose masterpiece she is.

It is absurd to imagine that in reciting the
Rosary we are counting prayers. Indeed, the
very ^arrangement of the beads prevents our
counting the number of Aves we say. Instead
of preventing real prayer, the Rosary on the
contrary helps greatly to concentrate our atten-
tion, as even Protestants (Episcopalians) who
have practised this devotion for a long time
have acknowledged to me. Many a simple soul
reciting the Rosary before the altar of God will
put to the blush many a speech-prayer of the
proud pharisee. As for Bible warrant, the Our
Father and half of the Hail Maty are taken
from the Holy Scriptures (Matt. vi. 9-13 ; Luke
i. 28), while the repetition of these prayers so
much objected to by non-Catholics rests on the
word and example of the Saviour (Luke xi. 5-
8, xviii. 3-10; Matt. xxvi. 44; cf. Ps. cxxxv. ;
Matt. xx. 31).

What constitutes a saint in your Church ?
A saint is one whose extraordinary holiness

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints, 539

of life and heroic virtues have attracted the
notice of the Universal Church, and who after
the most exact scrutiny into every detail of his
life, writings, etc., has been placed on the ap-
proved list of God's chosen followers. Except
in the case of martyrs, their holiness must be
proved conclusively by evident miracles before
they are canonized. Of course there are many
men and women who live and die unknown to
the world, but whose lives are just as holy in
God's sight.

Why do you give honor to the saints, when it
all belongs to God?
Why do Catholics worship and adore the saints ?

Catholics do not adore the saints ; they adore
God alone. They venerate and love the saints
as the special friends of Jesus Christ. Just as
the state honors and respects its great men, and
holds up to the imitation of the citizens their
love of country, so the Church of God honors
its heroes, and holds up to the faithful the ideal
of their love of God. The word "worship M in
the question is ambiguous, for in the English
language it by no means is synonymous with
adoration. It may be applied either to the su-
preme divine worship of the one God (latria ), or
the infinitely inferior respect and veneration of
the saints of God dulia ( or hyperdulia ). In the
old Protestant marriage service, for instance,

Digitized by

540

The Question Box.

the phrase u with my body I thee worship 99 by
no means signified a divine adoration. Nor,
again, does the term " your worship " or " wor-
shipful sir " applied to the judge on the bench
necessarily give him the divine honor paid to
the old Roman emperors.

Strange, indeed, that despite the fact of the
constant protest of Catholics for nearly four
hundred years, and despite the acknowledg-
ment of Protestant misrepresentation frequently
made by Protestants everywhere, this old calum-
ny should still be voiced by the ignorant. To
learn the Catholic doctrine one has merely to
read- a Catholic catechism, which refutes this
calumny, as of old it was refuted by St. Augus-
tine. He says: "We venerate the martyrs
with that veneration of love and fellowship
which, even in this life, we honor the holy ser-
vants of God, whose hearts we feel are ready to
endure a similar suffering for the truth of the
Gospel. But we honor them the more devoutly
because they are safe, having conquered in the
strife. . . . But with that worship which
in Greek is called latria (adoration), . . .
we neither worship them, nor teach men to wor-
ship any but the one God." (Cont. Faust.
Man., lxx. n. xxi. For the Fathers, see
"Faith of Catholics," vol. iii. p. 318-409.
Cf. Gen. xix. ; Num. xxii. 31; John v. 4;
Apoc. xxii. 8.)

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 541

Is every Catholic bound to pray continually to
the saints?

Why not go directly to Christ — the one Media-
tor? (I. Tim. ii. 5).

What proof is there that the saints know our
needs?

How do you know that they really intercede
for us?

Does not your teaching make the saints practi-
cally omnipotent?

The teaching of the Catholic Church on the
invocation and intercession of the saints is
clearly set forth by the Council of Trent (Sess.
xxv.) : "It is good and useful suppliantly to
invoke them, and to have recourse to their
prayers, aid, and help for obtaining benefits of
God, through His Son, Jesus Christ, our I/>rd,
who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour."

The fact of intercessory prayer, the venera-
tion and the mediation of the angels and saints,
• is evident to any student of the Scriptures :

Gen. xix. 1 \ "And seeing them (the two
angels), he rose up and went to meet them ; and
worshipped prostrate to the ground."

Gen. xlviii. 16: " The angel that delivereth
me from all evils, bless these boys."

Zach. i. 12 : " O I<ord of hosts, how long wilt
thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, etc."

Matt, xviii. 10: "Their angels always see
the face of My Father who is in heaven."

Digitized by

542

The Question Box.

Apoc. v. 8: "Golden vials full of odors,
which are the prayers of saints."

Apoc. viii. 3, 4 : "That he should offer of
the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar,
. . . and the smoke of the incense of the
prayers of the saints ascended up before God."

The Scriptures, moreover, tell us that the
prayers of a saint on this earth avail much
(James v. i6)% and give us many an example of
the efficacy of intercessory prayer, as the prayer
of Abraham (Gen. xviii.), of Moses (Exod.
xvii.), of Job (xlii.), the brethren for St. Paul
(Rom. xv. 30; Eph. vi. 18, 19; I. Thess. v.
25) . According to the ordinary Protestant no-
tion this intercessory prayer was useless. Why
not go to God directly ? or in the new law, why
not go to Christ directly?

Catholics ask, is it reasonable to suppose that
nearness to the throne of God destroys this
power of intercession? Is it to be expected
that in the joy of God's presence the saints will
forget their brethren upon earth, who are still
fighting the good fight ? Nay, rather their love
for us must become more intense with the
greater realization of the joys of God's king-
dom, and their prayers be multiplied as their
power becomes greater with God.

I have met many Protestants who imagine
that after death the saints have no further
knowledge of what happens upon earth. They

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 543

fail to grasp the essential doctrine of the Com-
munion of Saints, although they may recite the
words of the Apostles' Creed. Scripture plain-
ly declares that the angels in heaven know our
actions upon earth (Tob. xii. 12'; I. Cor. iv. 9 ;
Matt, xviii. 10), and even our very thoughts
(Luke xv. 10). Why, then, deny the same
knowledge to the saints? — especially as our
Lord declares that the children of the resurrec-
tion shall be as " the angels of God in heaven "
(Matt. xxii. 30; Luke xx. 36).

How do they know ? continues the objector.
Scripture tells us the fact, not the mode of their
knowledge. The common Catholic teaching is
that they know all things conducive to their
happiness in the face-to-face vision of God (I.
John Hi. 2 ; I. Cor. xiii. 12).

The intercession of Jesus Christ is unique
and totally distinct from the mediatorship of the
saints, His followers. He is the one Mediator
of justice in virtue of His redemption, accord-
ing to the Apostle : " There is one Mediator of
God and men — the man Christ Jesus, who gave
Himself a redemption for all 99 (I. Tim. ii. 5, 6).
The mediation of the just upon earth and the
saints in heaven is not of justice but of grace,
and efficacious only in union with His me-
diation.

There is no possibility of disunion between
Christ, the Head of the mystical body, and the

Digitized by

544

The Question Box,

saints as members thereof. Their mediation,
therefore, being in a true sense His own, by no
means derogates from His honor or glory, but
on the contrary redounds thereunto.

The early Church understood this doctrine
well, as we can read on every page of the early
Fathers. The veneration of the saints and mar-
tyrs was universal, countless miracles of their
intercession are recorded, and the love of the
early Christians shown by the honor paid to
their tombs, relics, images, and pictures. (For
many testimonies see "Faith of Catholics,* '
vol. iii. pp. 318-409; Rev. Thomas Wvius,
" The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers," chs. vii.
viii., pp. 278 et seg.) St. Ignatius, in the sec-
ond century, writes to the Trallians : "My
spirit be your expiation, not now only but
when I shall have attained to God" (13). St.
Cyprian, in the third century, writing to Pope
Cornelius, says: "If One of us shall, by the
speediness of the divine dispensation, depart
hence the first, let our love continue in the
presence of the Lord ; let not prayer for our
brethren and sisters cease in the presence of the
'mercy of the Father" (Ep. ad Cornel. 57, Pat.
I,at., torn. iii. p. 836).

The principle of intercession presents no dif-
ficulty in things human ; why, then, in things
divine ? If I desire a favor of President Roose-
velt, I may ask him directly, or do so indirectly

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 545

through some of his personal friends. Will he
take it as an insult if I approach him indirect-
ly ? The request must come ultimately to him.
So in the supernatural order. If I desire a
favor of God, I may ask Him directly if I
choose, or indirectly through His friends, the
saints of God, as we are taught by the Scrip-
tures and all Christian antiquity. The request
must ultimately come to God, who alone can
grant it. How absurd to think Him insulted
if His loved ones add their prayers to ours.

The saints* intercessory power by no means
implies omnipotence, for they have no power of
themselves to grant us what we ask, but can
merely plead to God on our behalf.

Has not the age of miracles passed for ever ?
Did it not cease with the death of the Apostles ?

No, the age of miracles will last until the end
of time. Christ foretold (Mark xvi. 17, 18) the
miraculous power of His saints: " And these
signs shall follow them that believe. In My
Name, they shall cast 6ut devils; they shall
speak with new tongues ; they shall take up
serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly
thing, it shall not hurt them ; they shall lay
their hands upon the sick, and they shall re-
cover.' ' And John xiv. 12: "He that believ-
eth in Me, the works that I do he also shall
do; and greater than these shall he do.,,

Digitized by

546 The Question Box.

We grant that they are not so numerous to-
day as in the first days of the Church, when
they were specially meant to aid the spread of
Christianity (St. Aug., De Civitate Dei, c. vii.),
but no unprejudiced man can read the testi-
mony for miracles in the lives of saints canon-
ized by the Holy See, or performed, for instance,
at gourdes in France, without seeing at once
that God's arm is not shortened, but that He
still works His wonders as in Apostolic times.
(" Medical, Testimony to the Miracles of
Lourdes," vol. xvi., Catholic Truth Society
Publications; Henri Laserre, " Miracles at
Lourdes"; American Cath. Quarterly, 1876,
P. 337; 1898, p. 382.)

Do Catholics have to believe all the miracles
recorded in the lives of the saints?

By no means. They are historical facts,
which depend on human and fallible testimony,
which may be false, and therefore is to be
weighed carefully as any other testimony.
Many things related in the old lives of the
saints are undoubtedly legends. Thus, I*in-
gard, the Catholic historian, after speaking of
many undoubted miracles in the Anglo-Saxon
Church, admits " there are also many which
must shrink from the frown of criticism ; some
which may have been the effect of accident or
imagination ; some that are more calculated to

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints, 547

excite the smile than the wonder of the readers ;
and some which . . . depend on the dis-
tant testimony of writers not remarkable for
sagacity or discrimination " ("Antiquities of
the Anglo-Saxon Church," ch. xii. n. 6).
The Catholic Church, however, is most careful
in her acceptance of miracles, as we can see by
the rules laid down by Benedict XIV. in his
treatise on "The Canonization of Saints.' '
Evidence that critics have considered con-
vincing has, as a matter of fact, been rejected
by the Congregation of Rites at Rome.

Catholics are not more credulous than other
people, but they protest against that modern
irrational prejudice which, denying the possi-
bility of miracles, refuses to consider testi-
mony for them, no matter how strong or over-
whelming.

Do not Catholics adore images and pray to
them?

No, Catholics do not. The Council of Trent
(Sess. xxv.) declares "that the images of
Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the
other saints, are to be had and kept especially
in churches, and that due honor and veneration
are to be given them ; not that any divinity or
' virtue is believed to be in them, on account of
which they are to be worshipped, or that any-
thing is to be asked of them, or that trust is to

Digitized by

548

The Question Box.

be reposed in images, as was done of old by
the Gentiles, who placed their hope in idols \
but because the honor which is shown them is
referred to the prototypes which these images
represent ; in such wise that by the images
which we kiss, and before which we uncover
the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore
Christ, and we venerate the saints whose simili-
tude they bear."

Does not God absolutely forbid us to make any
graven images or bow down to them ? (Ex. xx.
5) . Yet you Catholics bow to statues, the cruci-
fix, etc.

God prohibits here and elsewhere in Scrip-
ture the making of idols (pesel) and worship-
ping them. " Thou shalt not make to thyself a
graven thing. . . . Thou shalt not adore
them nor serve them " (Ex. xx. 4, 5) . This is
evident from the context, for God gives the rea-
son of the prohibition : " I ani the Lord thy God ,
mighty, jealous/' etc. ; that is to say, One who
wants the undivided love of His people, and is
jealous of strange gods or idols representing
them. If the text meant an absolute and per-
petual prohibition, we would have God prohibit-
ing here what He commands elsewhere. For God
Himself expressly ordered images to be made
and used for religious purposes, viz. : the golden
cherubim (Ex. xxv. 18) , the brazen serpent

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 549

(Num. xxi. 8; John iii. 14), and 4< divers fig-
ures and carvings " in the Temple of Solomon
(III. Kings vi. 29-35). . The Ark of Covenant,
for example, received the same veneration that
Catholics pay to images : " And Josue . . .
fell flat on the ground before the ark of the
Lord until the evening " (Josue vii. 6 ; II. Kings
vi,) Logically, if the commandment refer not
to the idolatrous worship of images, but abso-
lutely "to the making of any graven thing* '
whatsoever, Protestants ought to destroy all the
statues of our great men and burn all the por-
traits of their relatives and friends. The Israel-
ite prostrating himself before the king, the Eng-
lishman saluting the throne, the American sol-
dier saluting the flag — all should fall under the'
ban of this peculiar command of God.

We can readily understand that the Jewish
discipline on this matter was most strict, be-
cause of their proneness to imitate the idolatry
of the pagans amongst whom they lived. The
same difficulty met the early Christians whose
great struggle was directed against the idol-
worship of the pagans. And yet the catacombs
reveal to us clearly by the many paintings,
gilded glasses, etc., that have come down to us
— representing various scenes in the life of
Christ, His Mother, the Apostles and other
saints of the Old Law and the New — that the
mind of the early Christians was identical with

Digitized by

55o

Tfie Question Box.

that of Catholics to-day. For the witness of
Christian antiquity read * 1 Faith of Catholics,"
vol. iii. pp. 303-318.

The wanton destruction of crucifixes, statues,
and paintings that marked the beginning of the
Reformation in Germany, Scotland, and Eng-
land, deplored by many non-Catholics the world
over, was merely a revival of the old Icono-
clastic heresy condemned in 787 by the Second
Council of Nice. Strange, indeed, that the
statues and pictures of kings, queens, and
Reformation ' ' saints'1 soon filled the vacant
niches and walls of the old churches ! Error is
never consistent.

Did not Catholics suppress the second com-
mandment, in order to get over its prohibition
against graven images?

Why are the ten commandments divided differ-
ently by Protestants and Catholics?

Catholics have never suppressed the second
commandment. They have abridged at times
the first commandment in catechisms intended
for children, but in that they have the example
of the Holy Spirit (IV. Kings xvii. 35), who
does exactly the same thing.

The Scriptures tell us that there were ten
commandments, but do not indicate how they
were divided. The Protestant division follows
rather Ex. xx. 1-17, while the Catholic follows

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 551

Deut. v. 6-21. The Catholic division is the
older and the more logical. We hold that
desire for another man's wife and desire for an-
other man's property are two essentially distinct
crimes, and therefore merit two separate com-
mandments, the ninth and tenth. On the other
hand, the first commandment, insists on the vir-
tue of religion and forbids all sins against that
virtue, the chief of which is idolatry. Logic-
ally, therefore, the Protestant second command-
ment has no reason of being, and was born of
the exigency of controversy to justify the early
Reformers.

The Catholic division (St. Augustine, Cle-
ment of Alexandria, St. Jerome) is to be found
in the works of John Huss and Martin Luther.
(Opera Huss, Norimbergiae, 1558, p. 30; Cate-
chism of Dr. Martin Luther for Parsons, etc. ;
Appendix to Luther's German Bible; Alcuin,
De De,cem Verbis Legis, Opera, vol. i. p. 340;
the Council of Lambeth, a. d. 1281 ; the Synod
of Exeter, a. d. 1287, and books of devotion
written for the English people, as " The Festi-
val," Rouen, 1499, the "Pilgrimage of Per-
feceyon, a. d. 1531, " Dives et Pauper,"
1496, the catechisms of Erasmus and of Cran-
mer, 1548, etc., all follow the Catholic division.)

It is true indeed that some Jewish and Chris-
tian writers of the first centuries, viz., Philo,
Josephus, Origen, Ambrose, Procopius, and

Digitized by

552

The Question Box.

Rupertus, followed the Protestant division, but
they did not forbid the veneration of images
like the latter, but regarded the first command-
ment as forbidding the interior act of idolatry,
and the seqond the external act. It is not until
1552 that we find the decalogue divided in the
Book of Common Prayer as Protestants divide
it to-day. ("The Use of Holy Images/' Rev.
1,. Meurin, S.J., 1866, Bombay.)

What good are statues and pictures ? Can we
not pray to God without them?

Undoubtedly a man could pray to God alone
on a barren island, or wrecked on a spar of a
sunken ship, or in the dark cell of a prison,
without the help of painting or of statue. But
we must take man as he generally is. We
could respect the heroes of our country without
raising statues to them in the national capital ;
we could commune in spirit with our .friends
without the need of the photograph on our
walls ; a mother could sigh over the babe she
lost without taking in her hands the little
trinkets of the dead dear one; but it is not
the way of human nature.

The Catholic Church claims to answer every
need of the human heart. She uses every pos-
sible means to unite her children to God. It is
an undoubted fact that statues and pictures of
the saints are great helps to devotion^ They

Digitized by

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 553

are the books of the illiterate, who thus learn
easily the story of the gospels ; they adorn our
churches, which are the home of Jesus Christ,
with masterpieces of art still the envy of those
who believe not ; they bring vividly before all
the lives of Christ and his saints, and incite
us to imitate them.

The newspapers and magazines of our day
know well the power of illustration to help the
imagination ; the theatre speaks to-day of the
thousands it spends on scenic display ; in pro-
cessions on holidays floats are carried through-
out our cities with statues representing the vari-
ous handicrafts. Can you therefore object to
our rational, traditional, and Scriptural custom ?

Is it not superstition to venerate relics, viz. :
the bones of a dead man or woman?

What warrant is there for such practice in the
Scriptures ?

The reverence paid by Catholics to the relics
of the saints is by no means superstitious. On
the contrary, it is an act of religion and the
teaching of the Christian Church from the be-
ginning "that the holy bodies of holy martyrs,
and of others now livipg with Christ, . . .
are to be venerated by the faithful, through
which (bodies) many benefits are bestowed by
God on men" (Council of Trent, Sess. xxv.)
St. Jerome in the fourth century wrote a book

Digitized by

554

The Question Box.

against the heretic Vigilantius, who called the
Christians of the time who venerated the relics
of the martyrs "cinder- worshippers and idola-
ters ' ' ( cinerarii et idolatrce) . In writing on the
matter to the priest Riparius he says: " We
worship not, we adore not, I do not say relics
only, but not even the sun and moon, not
angels, not archangels, not the cherubim, not
the seraphim, . . . lest we serve the crea-
ture, rather than the Creator. But we honor
the relics of the martyrs, that we may adore
Him whose martyrs they are. We honor the
servants, that the honor given to the servants
may redound to the I^ord," etc. (Ep. c. ix. ad
Riparium). For other testimonies of the ven-
eration of relics in the early Church from the
second to the fifth century see " Faith of Catho-
lics,0 vol. iii. pp. 235-303.

Scripture speaks plainly of astonishing mira-
cles wrought by means of material objects be-
longing to the saints, viz. : the mantle of Elias
divided the waters of the Jordan (IV. Kings ii.
8-14), the rod of Moses performed wonders at
the court of Pharao (Ex. vii. 10 et seq.)y the
bones of the prophet Eliseus raised a dead man
to life (IV. Kings xiii. 21), the hem of our
Lord's garment cured the woman sick twelve
years with the issue of blood (Matt. ix. 20, 21,
xiv. 36), the handkerchiefs and aprons which
had touched the body of St. Paul cured diseases

Digitized by

i

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints, 555

and drove out wicked spirits (Acts xix. 12), the
shadow of St. Peter healed multitudes that were
* 1 sick, and troubled with unclean spirits"
(Acts v. 15, 16).

The same spirit has actuated Christians from
the beginning zealously to gather up and venerate
the relics of the saints of God, that prompts a
mother to save carefully and love dearly a lock
of her dead baby's hair, or that prompts us
Americans to keep with great reverence the
chair and the pen of the signers of the Declara-
tion of Independence at Philadelphia, the sword
of Washington at Mount Vernon, the home of
Jefferson Davis at Richmond with its several
rooms devoted to the relics dear to the several
Southern States. The Church of God claims
the same privilege to show her love and rev-
erence for her heroes.

Remember that Catholics do not believe that
relics have any secret power strictly of them-
selves, but they know that God has often
granted special favors and blessings through
their instrumentality. There is no divinity in
them, but God uses them in the same way that
he uses men to do his will.

Are there not many relics going about that are
not genuine?

What proof have you in any particular in-
stance that you are not being deceived ?

Digitized by

556

The Question Box.

There are undoubtedly, through ignorance
and fraud, some spurious relics (Letter of Jan-
uary, 1 88 1, by Cardinal- ViCar of Rome to all
Bishops warning against spurious relics), and
indeed we do not claim absolute certainty in
this matter. No Catholic, indeed, is bound to
believe any relic genuine unless he has satisfac-
tory evidence to the fact. The Council of
Trent ordered bishops to take special pains in
this regard, and the Congregation of Indul-
gences and Relics at Rome has done its best to
prevent false relics being offered to the venera-
tion of the faithful, requiring always a special
document of authentication. Suppose, how-
ever, the relic to be false, the saint would still
be honored by us ; for we pray not to a bit of
bone, but to the saint to whom it is supposed to
belong.

What historical proof is there that the Cross on
which the Saviour died was really discovered ?

Are there not enough relics of the true Cross in
existence to make hundreds of the original?

This is an utterly false statement of fact. M.
Rohault de Fleury in 1870 refuted this calumny,
and his work has been summarized by Rev.
James Bellord in one of the Catholic Truth
Society pamphlets. Estimating the size of the
cross at 15 feet for the upright, i\ feet for the
cross-beam, 7J inches for the breadth and 6

Digitized by

The Biessed Virgin and the Saints. 557

inches for the thickness, it would follow that it
contained 6* cubic feet of timber, or about
11,448 cubic inches. All the relics in the world
fall far below this amount. In all his long and
arduous researches M. de Fleury, so far from
finding enough relics of this kind to make three
hundred "true crosses," cou d only discover,
including 370 cubic inches of notable relics
that no longer exist, enough of the sacred wood
to make up a bulk of about § of a cubic foot.
(C/. The Month, March, 1882, vol. xliv. p. 358.)

As to the finding of the Cross, Cardinal New-
man, while yet a Protestant, discussed this fact
in his essay on the miracles of Early Ecclesias-
tical History, ch. v. sect. v. pp. 286-326.

What is the good of pilgrimages to certain
places when God is everywhere ?

Undoubtedly God is everywhere, but some
places are especially chosen by Him to Show
forth His power, goodness, and mercy, and are
therefore naturally dear io those who love Him.
When visited in the right spirit and not out of
curiosity ("Following of Christ/ ' Book IV.
ch. 1.) , they cannot fail to arouse sentiments of
true devotion. How many thousands of Chris-
tians have felt their hearts burn with love for
the Saviour, how many non-Christians have
learned for the first time the mystery of the
Cross, as they visited the different cities of the

Digitized by

558

The Question Box.

Holy Land, once blessed by the presence of
Jesus Christ. Every country, too, has had its
shrines of the saints of God, viz.: Rome, Tours,
Lourdes, St. Albans, Compostella, etc., where
good souls have prayed with greater fervor and
great sinners have done penance for their sins.
As early as the eighth century pilgrimages,
especially to the Holy I,and and to the tomb of
the Apostles in Rome, were made a substitute
for the severe canonical penances (Lepicier,
Indulgences). In the Old Testament also we
read of Elcana and Anna going every year to
pray at Silo (I. Kings i. i, 3), and the Jews
used to go every year to the Temple at Jerusa-
lem, a custom which our Lord Himself observed
(Luke ii. 41). It is the teaching of the Scrip-
tures that prayer has special efficacy in certain
places (III. Kings viii. 29). In fine,- it answers
a need in human nature. All people have a
special love and veneration for the relics,
houses, and tombs of their great men. No
one objects to the thousands who yearly visit
the tomb of Washington at Mount Vernon, or
of Napoleon at Paris; no one finds fault with
those who make pilgrimages to the houses of
Longfellow and Lowell in Cambridge, or of
Hawthorne in Salem. Why, then, be so illogi-
cal as to deny Catholics the right to visit the
shrines and tombs of Christ and the heroes of
Christ's Church, the Saints of God ?

Digitized by

The Hereafter,

559

THE HEREAFTER.

How do you know that a man is judged imme-
diately after his death ? If so, of what use then
is the judgment on the last day ?

The fact of the particular judgment at the
hour of death, although not defined by the
Catholic Church, is a logical inference from the
teaching of Scripture and tradition from the
beginning, that the eternal lot of every soul is
determined at death. "And it came to pass
that the beggar died, and was carried by the
angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich
man also died; and he was buried in hell"
(Iyuke xvi. 22). Such also is the teaching of
the Council of Florence (a. d. 1438-45). It is
probable too that the Epistle to the Hebrews
mentions this doctrine : "It is appointed unto
men once to die, and after this the judgment "
(Heb. ix. 27).

The dogma of the General Judgment at the end
of the world is clearly set forth by the Saviour in
Matt. xxv. 31-46 (cf. II. Cor. v. 10; Apoc. xx.
12), and is embodied in the Apostles', the Ni-
cene, and the Athanasian Creeds. Its purpose
is to manifest to the world the wisdom of the
divine plan, to vindicate the offended majesty
of Christ, and to show forth the glory of the
just and the shame of the reprobate.

What, and where is Limbo ?

Digitized by

56o

The Question Box.

Limbo is the place where the souls of the
just, who died before the death of Jesus Christ,
were detained. It was distinct from Purgatory,
inasmuch as the souls there did not suffer, al-
though they did not enjoy the Beatific Vision.
It is mentioned several times in the New Testa-
ment : for instance, " Abraham's bosom " (Luke
xvi. 22), " Paradise* ' (Luke xxiii. 43), and
"the prison" (I. Pet. iii. 19). The Apostles1
Creed calls it hell (a term sometimes used to
mean any place not Heaven); " He descended
into hell," for Christ after His death on the
cross went to announce to the souls of Limbo
the glad tidings of their redemption. "In
which also coming, He preached to those spirits
that were in prison'* (I. Pet. iii. 19).

RESURRECTION OF THE BODY.

How is it possible that we shall all rise again
with the same bodies that we had upon earth ?

The Catholic Church teaches (IV. Lateran
Council) that all men "will rise again with
their own bodies which they now bear about
with them" (Apostles', Nicene, and Athana-
sian Creeds).

This doctrine of the resurrection of the body,
and its reuniting with the soul at the day of
Judgment, cannot be proved from reason, but

Digitized by

Resurrection of the Body. 561

is the clear teaching of the Scriptures. The
doctrine of the Jews is plain from Dan. xii. 2;
II. Mach. vii. 9; John xi. 24. Our Lord ex-
pressly taught it against the Sadducees of His
time, who denied it (Matt. xxii. 30; Luke xx.
37. Cf. John v. 28, vi. 39, xi. 25 ; Luke xiv.
14), and St. Paul mentions it frequently, es-
pecially I. Cor. xv. 12. (Cf. Acts xvii. 18, 31,
32, xxiii. 6, xxiv. 15, xxvi. 8 ; Rom. viii. 11 ;
I. Cor. vi. 14; II. Cor. iv. 14; Phil. iii. 21;
I. Thess. iv. 12-16; II. Tim. ii. 11; Heb.
vi. 2).

It is undoubtedly the teaching of Revelation
that we shall all rise again with the same bodies
(I. Cor. xv. 53; Rom. viii. 11) ; but how far
this identity is to be kept, we do not know.
We can only give the answer ot St. Paul to the
objectors of his day, when he asked them to ex-
plain how it was that God made the wheat
spring up from the dying of the seed. " Sense-
less man, that which thou sowest is not quick-
ened, except it die first. . . . But God
giveth it a body as He will ; and to every seed
its proper body" (I. Cor. xv. 36, 38).

What does your Church teach regarding the
millennium? (Rev. xx. 4, 5). ,

The Church has defined nothing whatsoever
on this subject. The reign of Christ for one
thousand years (Apoc. xx. 1-10), with the two

Digitized by

562 The Question Box.

resurrections of the just and the [wicked, held
in the early Church by some few writers, is
contrary to the Scriptures, which speak only ol
the two-fold coming of Christ ; the first as the
Babe of Bethlehem (Luke i.), and the second
as the Judge of the living and the dead (Matt,
xxiv. 27, xxv.) The Apocalypse is one of the
most obscure portions of Holy Writ, and no
one pretends to be able to interpret it with
any certainty.

Where in the Bible is the word " Purgatory "
found?

The word Purgatoiy is not found in the
Bible ; but what does that prove ? Many other
terms, v,g.} the Trinity, the Incarnation — sacred
to every orthodox Protestant as well as Catho-
lic— are likewise not in Holy Writ. The doc-
trine of Purgatory is in the Bible.

What is the teaching of your Church with re-
gard to Purgatory, and on what authority does
it rest ?

The Catholic Church teaches "that there is
a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained
are. helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but
chiefly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar* '
(Trent, Sess. xxv.)

The strongest argument for the existence of

Digitized by

Resurrection of the Body.

563

Purgatory and the practice of praying for the
dead is the universal and constant witness of
divine tradition as voiced in the writings of the
Fathers (see " Faith ot Catholics," vol. iii. pp.
139-205), in the ancient Liturgies of both East
and West, in the inscriptions in the catacombs
of Rome (Northcote, " The Roman Catacombs/ '
ch. vii.), and in the Councils of Florence (a. d.
1438-45) and Trent (1545-63)- Thus, Tertul-
lian writes (about 204 a. d.) ; " We make, on
one day every year, oblations for the dead, as
for their birthdays' ' (De Corona, n. 3).

The evidence of Scripture (II. Mach. xii.
43-46) shows the belief of the Jews in a middle
state where the dead can profit by the good
works (sacrifices) and prayers of the living:
" And making a gathering, (Judas Machabeus)
sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jeru-
salem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of
the dead. ... It is therefore a holy and
wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that
they may be loosed from sins." The historical
value of this book of Scripture cannot be denied
by those who reject it as canonical, for we have
even to this day the witness of the orthodox
Jewish prayer-book to the fact of such prayers.
Its inspiration rests on the same authority as
Genesis and the Apocalypse, — the divine wit-
ness of the infallible Church of God. If the
doctrine of Purgatory were an innovation of the

Digitized by

5^4

The Question Box.

Pharisees, surely it would have fallen under the
condemnation of the Saviour, for thiere can be
no doubt that in His day it was, as it is now, a
Jewish belief.

There are, moreover, proofs of the doctrine
in the New Testament, as we learn from the
interpretation of the Fathers of the early
Church, viz., Matt. xii. 32, in which Christ
speaks of slight sins being forgiven in the world
to come; I. Cor. iii. 13-15, in which St. Paul
mentions * ' the fire which shall try every man's
work, and through which he himself shall be
saved " ; I. Pet. iii. 18-20, in which St. Peter
tells how our Saviour preached the fact of His
redemption to " those spirits that were in pri-
son'' (cf. Matt. v. 26).

It is indeed strange how, in the face of this
overwhelming testimony, the early Reformers
dared deny the doctrine. They believed that
nothing defiled could enter heaven, and that
"the eyes of God were too pure to look upon
iniquity " (Apoc. xxi. 27; Habacuc i. 3).
What, then, was to become of the" millions of
souls who were not perfectly pure from sin at
the hour of death? The denial of Purgatory
implies either the cruel doctrine that the greater
number of even devout Christians are lost,
which in the reaction to-day outside the •Catho-
lic Church accounts in some degree for the
common denial of eternal punishment; or the

Digitized by

Resurrection of the Body. 565

unwarranted and unproved assumption that
God by " some sudden i magical change " puri-
fies the soul at the instant of death. (Mohler,
" Symbolism/ ' Book I. ch. iii. sec. xxiii.;
Oxenham, " Eschatology," ch. i. pp. 26-40.)

How logically is doctrine interwoven with
doctrine in the clear, consistent gospel of Jesus
Christ, so that a denial of one central dogma
means the overthrow of all. Luther's new the-
ory of justification by faith alone, led him to
- deny the fact of temporal punishment, the dis-
tinction between mortal and venial sin, the effi-
cacy of indulgences, the existence of Purga-
tory, and the usefulness of prayers for the dead.

The doctrine of Purgatory follows clearly
from the doctrine that some die with the burden
of venial sins on their souls, or with the tem-
poral punishment due to forgiven sin still tin-
paid. How few souls are fit to be ushered into
the awful presence of God ! Are there not
many slight sins in our life-time that we never
even ask pardon for ? And, again, do ypu be-
lieve that a perfectly just God would grant
heaven immediately to the death-bed penitent
who had not the time to satisfy for all his sins,
or to pay to the last farthing the debt of tem-
poral punishment?

Indeed, Protestants have admitted to me that
they have felt instinctively that some of their own
relatives were neither wicked enough to deserve

Digitized by

566

The Question Box.

hell nor good enough to deserve heaven at the
hour of death, and that despite their doctrinal
denial, they had prayed for them. One Lu-
theran woman lately, in Baltimore, told me that
for years she had thus gone to the grave of one
she loved, and prayed there as earnestly as any
Catholic.

Even the pagan philosopher Plato distin-
guished between curable and incutable offences
to be punished hereafter, — the one for a time,
the other for ever. He writes in his Gorgias,
" But those that are benefited, at the same time
that they suffer punishment both from gods
and men, are such as have been guilty of cura-
ble offences ; their benefit, however, both here
and in Hades, accrues to them through means
of pain and torments ; for it is not possible to
be freed from injustice in any other wayn
(Cary's translation, vol. i. p. 230, n. 171).

Many non-Catholics to-day are, therefore,
coming to realize how irrational and unchris-
tian was the Reformation rejection of this most
consoling doctrine. Mallock writes: "It is
becoming fast recognized on all sides that it
(Purgatory) is the only doctrine that can bring
a belief in future rewards and punishments into
anything like accordance with our notions of
what is just and reasonable. So far from its
being a superfluous superstition, it is seen to be
just what is demanded at once by reason and

Digitized by

Resurrection of the Body. 567

morality ; and a belief in it to be not an intel-
lectual assent onty, but a partial harmonizing
of the whole moral ideal' 9 ("Is Life Worth
Living ?" ch. xi. p. 290).

Did not Christ, say to the good thief : " Verily, .
I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me in
paradise "? (Luke xxiii. 43).

Catholics, believing that Christ's soul imme-
diately after His death went down to limbo to
preach deliverance to the souls of the just there
detained (I. Pet. iii. 19), declare that paradise in
the above text does not refer to heaven at all,
but to limbo.

But at any rate, the fact that Christ, in view
of the dying thief's suffering and sorrow, re-
mitted unto him all the punishment due to his
sins, does not prove that Purgatory does not ex-
ist. For Catholics believe that God may at any
time remit the guilt of sin and all the punish-
ment due thereto, just as he always does in the
sacrament of baptism ; but this is not His ordi-
nary law, as taught by His divinely infallible
Church.

How does the Church or the priest know when
a person has been delivered from Purgatory?

The Catholic Church does not pretend to
know anything about the duration of the suffer-
ings of Purgatory, save that God, who is infin-

Digitized by

568

The Question Box.

ite justice, will render to every one the punish-
ment he deserves. "Thou shalt not go out
from thence till thou repay the last farthing' *
(Matt. v. 26).

Is it just that God should pardon men, and
punish them afterwards in Purgatory ? Does not
Scripture say : " Blessed are the dead which die
in the Lord"? (Rev. xiv. 13).

This question has been answered above,
where we gave several instances in Scripture of
God pardoning the guilt of sin yet inflicting
temporal punishment for it afterwards. We
hold that the dead, in Purgatory are blessed,
for they are certain ultimately to see the face
of God.

HEAVEN.
Is heaven a place, or a state of the soul?
What do we really know about heaven ?

Heaven is both a place of everlasting happi-
ness, and a state of the soul perfectly h^ppy in
the presence of God. (Matt. iii. 16; Acts vii.
55 ; Wisdom v. 16; Matt. xxv. 46; Matt, xviii.
10; I. Cor. xiii. 12; I. John iii. 2).

In it there will be none of the evils of this
world, v. g.y hunger, thirst, labor, sorrow, sin,
or death (Ps. v. 6, liv. 7 ; Isa. xxv. 8 ; Job iii.
17; John xvi. 20; Apoc. vii. 16, xxi. 4, 27,
xxii. 5).

Digitized by

Heaven.

5^9

Its joys are beyond the power of the intellect
to conceive: " Eye hath not seen, nor ear
heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of
man, what things God hath prepared for them
that love Him" (I. Cor. ii. 9. Cf. Ps. xxxv.
9; Isa. lxiv. 4).

No one can enter heaven unless he be free
from sin and the penalty due thereunto,
"Nothing defiled can enter heaven" (Apoc.
xxi. 27) ; and each soul there is rewarded ac-
cording to his merits (Luke xix. 16 ; John xiv.
2 ; I. Cor. xv. 41 ; II. Cor. ix. 6).

Will we know our own relatives and friends in
heaven ?

Undoubtedly, for the love of the brethren will
be intensified and strengthened in the knowl-
edge and love of God which comes of the Beati-
fic Vision. Seeing God face to face (I. Cor. xiii.
12) as He is (I. John iii. 2), we must needs know
and love all the citizens of God's Kingdom ; the
love of the brethren is the necessary conse-
quence of the love of God. The unity for
which Christ prayed will then be perfectly real-
ized : " that they all may be one, as thou Father
in Me, and I in Thee ; that they also may be
one in us" (John xvii. 21).

What is the meaning of the words : " Heaven
and earth shall pass away, but my word shall
not pass away"? (Mark xiii. 31).

Digitized by

57o

The Question Box.

I never could understand why this question
was asked so frequently, save perhaps for one
reason, that the unthinking questioner imag-
ined that the word " heaven 99 referred to God's
kingdom hereafter, whereas it refers to the stars
and planets of the material heavens.

The meaning of the Saviour is evident. He
declares that all created things are uncertain
and perishable, but that His word is certain and
eternal. If, then, He, the Son of God, prophesy
the fall of Jerusalem and His second "coming
with great power and glory/ 9 His word must be
accepted as true.

HELL.

Do you believe in a personal devil?
Why does God not destroy the devil, if He is
omnipotent ?
Why did God create Satan ?

No believer in the Scriptures can deny the
existence of a personal devil. Throughout the
Old and New Testament there is mention of
Satan, Belial, Beelzebub (Luke x. 17; II. Cor.
vi. 15 ; Matt. xii. 24), a wicked (I. John ii. 13),
proud (I. Tim. iii. 6), powerful (Eph. ii. 2, vi.
12), cruel (Luke viii. 29, ix. 39; I Pet. v. 8),
deceitful (Gen. iii. 4; II. Cor. xi. 14; Eph. vi.
11 ; II. Thess. ii. 9) Spirit, who tempted our first

Digitized by

Hell.

57i

parents in the Garden of Eden (Gen. iii. 1),
David (I. Paral. xxi. 1), Job (ii. Judas
(Luke xxii. 3), our Saviour (Matt. iv. 10), and
tempts all men to his own eternal ruin of hell.
(I. Pet. v. 8; Matt. xxv. 41 ; Luke x. 18. Cf.
Matt. xii. 24; Luke xxii. 31; John viii. 44,
xiv. 30; II. Cor. iv. 4, xi. 3.)

God did not create the devil. Out of His
infinite goodness He created an angel, Lucifer,
the head of the angelic host, to serve Him
freely and love Him for ever. By refusing to
pay God the service and Worship due Him,
Lucifer was cast into hell to become the leader
of the evil spirits.

Why did not God give him another trial?
We simply do not know. Why does God allow
him to exist ? Because in His infinite wisdom
He made Lucifer an immortal spirit, and despite
his power to tempt men, God gives to every
man sufficient grace to resist. "God will not
suffer you to be tempted above that which you
are able" (I. Cor. x. 13). We might ask a
further question: Why does God allow any
wicked men to exist on this earth to tempt souls
to hell ? It is part of the insoluble mystery of
evil. God is not unjust, for to all He gives free
will and grace sufficient for the gaining of eter-
nal happiness.

Do you believe in progression after death ? I

Digitized by

572

The Question Box.

believe that ultimately all mankind will be
saved t

It was the doctrine of the first Universalists
(Relly and Murray, circ. A. d. 1770) that the
elect go directly to heaven at death, and the
non-elect are purified by fire till the day of
Judgment, when they too will be ultimately
saved. Some knew the interval of time to
be exactly forty-four thousand years ! Later
teachers (Ballou, 1790) denied all future pun-
ishment. Many Anglicans (Stanley, Maurice,
Farrar, etc.) cherish a hope in the future salva-
tion of all mankind (Farrar's 4 'Eternal Hope
— Mercy and Judgment").

The Catholic Church declares that probation
ends at death, and that there is no other chance
hereafter for the repentance of the sinner dying
in grievous sin. His sentence will be, " Depart
from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire"
(Matt. xxv. 41).

To suppose that hereafter the hardened sin-
ner will repent, is to assume without warrant
that punishment always causes repentance.
But even in this world obstinate criminals be-
come worse when they do not accept their pun-
ishment as the just due of their misdeeds. A
prisoner who was nearing the end of a twenty
years' sentence once told me, when I asked him
was he sorry for the crime he committed : " No,
and I will be revenged on society when I am

Digitized by

573

free." On what principle, then, can any one
claim that punishment hereafter will inevitably
work the conversion of the obdurate sinner?

What must Catholics believe regarding eternal
punishment ?

What proof is there of eternal punishment?

The Catholic dogma declares there is a Hell,
or state of eternal punishment. Thus we read
in the Athanasian Creed: "And they that
have done good shall go into life everlasting,
and they that have done evil, into everlasting
fire." The proof of the doctrine is found in the
many clear texts of the Scriptures, and the con-
stant witness of the Church of God from the
beginning. Again and again the Scriptures
expressly declare that the pains of hell are eter-
nal, that the fire will not be extinguished, that
the worm (of remorse) will not die, that the
wicked shall never enter the kingdom of God,
etc. " Depart from me, you cursed, into ever-
lasting fire" (Matt. xxv. 41). "Their worm
dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished.
. . . It is better for thee to enter into life
maimed, than having two hands to go into hell,
into unquenchable fire" (Mark ix. 44, 45).
"He that shall blaspheme against the Holy
Ghost shall never have forgiveness, but shall
be guilty of an everlasting sin " (Mark iii. 29).
"Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adul-

Digitized by

574

The Question Box.

terers . . . shall possess the kingdom of
God" (I. Cor. vi. 9, 10). " Who shall suffer
eternal punishment in destruction from the face
of the Lord " (II. Thess. i. 9). " To whom the
storm of darkness is reserved for ever" (Jude
13).

No forced interpretation of the word aionios
(eternal) can gainsay the clear sense of the
sacred text. " If Christ had intended to teach
the doctrine of eternal punishment, could He
possibly have taught it in plainer or more direct
terms? If He did not intend to teach it, could
He possibly have chosen language more certain
h priori to mislead, as the unbroken experience
of eighteen centuries proves £ posteriori that it
always has misled the immense multitude of
His disciples" (Oxenham, " Catholic Escha-
tology," ch. iv. p. 102).

Reason cannot demonstrate the dogma of
eternal punishment, but it can show that this
teaching of Revelation cannot be gainsaid by
reason. The whole question of evil is one of
the most obscure and difficult for the human
mind ; yet the Catholic Church, while declaring
that its perfect solution is for the world to come,
has the best answer to all the objections of un-
belief.

Men have sometimes asserted that eternal
punishment was a doctrine evolved by Chris-
tianity the better to control the ignorant multi-

Digitized by Google

Hell.

\

575

tude. How, then, do they account for the Hell,
or Tartarus, of Plato and of Virgil? (Abb6
Meric, "1/ Autre Vie,M Paris, 1880; Oxen-
ham, "Catholic Eschatology," London, 1876;
"That Unknown Country," Article by Rev. A.
F. Hewit, Springfield, Mass., 1889, pp. 459-
474 ; Carle, " Du dogme catholique sur Penfer,"
1842; Shedd, Prot., "The Doctrine of Eternal
Punishment" ; Dublin Review, Jan., 1881.)

How can an infinitely good, merciful God con-
demn the creatures He loves to everlasting tor-
ments?

It is common with unbelievers to throw dust
in the eyes of the ignorant by presenting one
side of a question and ignoring the other, for-
getting that Christianity is one great harmoni-
ous system of the Revelation of God. One
moment the argument runs : " God is too good
to punish His creatures for all eternity"; the
next moment, to deny His providence, the same
man will argue: "The world is too full of
misery and wretchedness to be the creation of
an All-Good Creator." God is too good — or
God is too evil ; it all depends on whether the
objector would deny hell or providence. Is this
honest? We must remember, too, that it is
only the weakness of our intellects which makes
us separate the attributes of God, which by
their nature are one and identical.

Digitized by

576 The Question Box.

Without any knowledge of Christian princi-
ples, it would seem at first sight that infinite
goodness and mercy are incompatible with eter-
nal punishment. Granting that after all expla-
nations the element of mystery must remain
when finite man considers the infinite counsels
of God (" How incomprehensible are His judg-
ments, and how unsearchable His ways," Rom.
xi. 33), still, reason has an answer.

You have not considered, on the other hand,
that the denial of eternal punishment cannot be
reconciled with the justice of God.

Will you tell me that a just God, who is the
Lawgiver and I^ord of men, can give His king-
dom to one guilty of unrepented murder, adul-
tery, seduction, avarice, or drunkenness? That
a just God can give eternal happiness to one
who has all his life long despised and set at
naught His mercy, and who has died obstinate
in evil?

Man is not a mere automaton, nor a mere ani-
mal of sense and instinct, nor an independent,
self-ruling being, but a creature created after
God's image and likeness, with intellect to
know the good and free will to choose it, — with
sufficient grace always to know God's revela-
tion, and to do God's will. If such a being
deliberately abuse these gifts and graces, refus-
ing to acknowledge his dependence on God his
Creator and Lawgiver, freely choosing mere

Digitized by

Hell.

577

creatures in place of his God, and die insolently

aught to this adorer of self than to leave him
to his choice for all eternity? Why, the un-
repentant sinner would be as out of place in
heaven as a tramp amid the luxury of an Inau-
guration ball. A son has rebelled against a
Father ; a friend turned traitor against a Friend ;
a creature against a Creator — and yet forsooth
Jesus Christ, the God of all justice, must say to
the rebel creature that still hates, Him : * * Come,
ye blessed of my Father, possess you the king-
dom* ' (Matt. xxv. 34). This is only thought-
less sentimentality, which, having lost alto-
gether the conviction of the malice of sin, re-
fuses to see God's justice in punishing the
sinner.

How could a loving God create some of His
creatures for eternal damnation ?

John Calvin in the sixteenth century taught
that God created some men for eternal perdition,
but this has never been the teaching of the
Catholic Church. It was natural that men who
mistook this cruel God for the God of the Chris-
tians rejected Christianity altogether.

The Council of Trent condemned most strongly
this doctrine of predestination, by declaring
that God sincerely wills to save those who are
not of the number of the predestined. (On

refusing

destiny, — can God do

Digitized by

Google

578

The Question Box.

Justification, Sess. vi. can. 17. Cf. Matt, xxiii.
27; John iii. 16.) Indeed, the doctrine of the
Catholic Church is that God sincerely wills all
men to be saved, as is evident from the Scrip-
tures : * * He is the propitiation for our sins ; and
not for ours only, but also for those of the
whole world M (I. John ii. 2) ; " Behold Him who
taketh away the sin of the world " (John i. 29) ;
" And Christ died for all" (II. Cor. v. 15);
" God our Saviour who will have all men to be
saved, and to come to the knowledge of the
truth' ' (I. Tim. ii. 4).

It is undoubtedly true that God foreknows
the eternal loss of the unrepentant sinner. Why,
then, continues our questioner, did He create
such a one ?

There is a great mystery involved herein, yet
it is wrong to accuse God of this evil ; He is not
the author of any evil. God is the Eternal
present ; with Him there is no past, there is no
future. He is the All-Knowing One, or He
ceases to be God. He knows the event, there-
fore, because it occurs ; but it does not occur
because God knows it. His foreknowledge in
no way affects our freedom of will.

We are created by God with intellect to know
the good, and free will to choose it. Moral
creatures, therefore, with a conscience within
us judging knowingly the right and the wrong,
we are responsible for the wrong freely chosen.

Digitized by

Hell.

SI 9

If we die in sin, we choose the wrong for all
eternity; and having had the sufficient grace of.
God to the last, we are guilty of our own damn-
ing. We cannot lay the responsibility of, it
upon Him. This is common sense. This is
the teaching of the Church of God.

I do not comprehend it, you tell me. Do you
expect to comprehend the mysteries of the Infi-
nite God? Like one who, looking at the re-
verse side of a beautiful tapestry, sees only the"
mere unmeaning medley of numberless slipped
stitches and knots, so we from our world point
of view understand not the grand plan of God.
One day from His view-point we shall behold the
beauty of the design unintelligible to us now.

In things human, we readily see how fore-
knowledge does not imply the causing of the
thing foreknown. I warn a poor swimmer not
to venture in an angry sea, for I am certain he
will drown if he attempt it. Am I responsible
for his death because he went counter to my
bidding ?

God warns a soul he loves not to venturein the
sea of grievous sin, for He is certain that If he
persist therein he will perish for life everlasting.
Is God responsible for the sinner's eternal death,
because freely and deliberately he refused to
obey the bidding of his Lord and Master ?

But you will tell me the comparison is faulty.
You could not help your stubborn friend, but

Digitized by

58o

The Question Box,

God could help the sinner by giving him more
grace, so that he must needs repent. Why does
He not do it ? No one can answer this ques-
tion. The distribution of God's graces is an
incomprehensible mystery. We know, how-
ever, that God has given the sinner sufficient
grace to save him, and that if he is lost he used
his free will to resist grace, and so fell short of
his eternal destiny. God could give enough
grace to insure this man's salvation, but you
cannot call Him unjust because He does not.
The sinner has chosen sin freely, and God leaves
him his choice for ever.

Suppose for an instant that God could not
create a soul whom He foresaw would be lost by
the abuse of free will and grace. It would
follow then that every one, by the very fact of
creation, and without any effort on their part,
would be infallibly certain of heaven.

If this were the case, man, who is created with
the free will to choose either good or evil, could
give himself up to the full satisfaction of every
evil desire and passion, feeling confident that
God must one day give him eternal happiness.
What becomes then of the distinction between
good and evil? What sanction would there be
to the moral law ?

Indeed, the foreknowledge of eternal ruin of
the sinner brings out — paradoxical as it may
seem— the goodness of God, who deigned to

Digitized by

Hell.

give to certain ones the gift of existence, even
though He knew they would abuse this gift.

But you may object further, why did God
give men this perilous gift of free will ?

God, in His infinite goodness, created men to
His image and likeness, to be one with Him in
love for all eternity. To love God, we must
know Him and serve Him, and that freely. As
a circle implies a centre, so man's dignity implies
the freedom of choice. How absurd, then, to
call God cruel if I abuse His most precious gift
of free will to my eternal ruin.

What is the Catholic teaching regarding the
torments of hell ?

How can God take delight for ever in the agony
of his creatures ?

Archbishop Kenrick, in his Dogmatic The-
ology (Tract x. ch. 3), says : " Of the kinds of
punishments which the condemned undergo, the
Church has put forth no definition. No one
has satisfactorily explained what punishments
are designated by the name of fire in the Scrip-
tures. It is sufficient to regard the suffering
as proceeding from the condition in which sin-
ners are placed as being remote from the king-
dom of heaven. It is not necessary to conceive
of God positively inflicting pain."

No, hell is made by man himself. Eternal
damnation is not, as Calvin taught, an arbitrary

Digitized by

532

The Question Box.

infliction of an eternally predestined decree, nor
a satisfaction of a revengeful deity, as unbe-
lievers love to call it. The essential punish-
ment of hell is the abandonment by God of the
sinner to himself and his formed habits of sin.
After years of helping grace, God has at last
withdrawn from a man the graces he persistently
rejected, and thus he dies in his sins.

Many reject the doctrine of eternal punish-
ment because they believe the Catholic dogma
implies God and His saints gloating over the
sufferings of the damned, tormented by count-
less demons armed with many instruments of
torture ; nothing but a fathomless abyss of im-
penetrable darkness and unimaginable stench,
where snakes, and griffins, and worms, and
blue-tongued flames encircle and entwine the
writhing bodies of the lost — a Hell of the im-
agination only, evolved in bad taste out of the
fertile brain of some exaggerated preacher, or
from too literal an interpretation of highly
figurative passages of Scripture. But the
language of poetry should not be confounded
with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The chief punishment of Hell is the loss of
the vision of God, and all that this entails.
The Church has defined nothing further, al-
though the common teaching, based on many
passages of the Scriptures (Matt. xiii. 42 ; Luke
*vi. 24 ; Heb. x. 27 ; Apoc. xx. 9, etc.), is that

Hell

583

there will also be a sensible suffering caused by
fire.

Is it not unjust to punish a few years of sin
with an eternity of punishment ?

The comparison should not be made between
a few years of sin, on the one hand, and an eter-
nity of punishment, on the other, but rather
between a sinner eternally obstinate in unre-
pented sin and a God eternally holy, whose
eyes are too pure to look on iniquity (Hab. i. 13).

A man that realizes the immeasurable malice
of sin, and the infinite holiness of God, will not
question the justice of eternal punishment,
especially when he reflects that it is of the sin-
ner's own choosing.

You do not pronounce society unjust when it
inflicts the death-penalty — the greatest possible
— upon the murderer. Indeed, human justice
never considers the duration of a crime as the
measure of the duration of the penalty to be
inflicted.

I could never be happy in heaven if I thought
that any one I loved, z\ e.> my child, was suffer-
ing in hell. Can a man be happy in heaven with
his wife and children in hell?

This is equivalent to saying : I could not be
happy in heaven if I were unhappy for all
eternity in heaven. We fully appreciate the

Digitized by

584 The Question Box.

extremes of human affection in this life. We
have known mothers loving to the last the most
cruel, unnatural sons ; wives faithful to the most
heartless, drunken husbands, and friends true
to the most ungrateful wretches in the world.
But there always is the hope in these loving
hearts that one day — it may be years hence —
their love shall be returned. It is worth wait-
ing for.

But the hate in the soul of the sinful one in
hell is everlasting. Can we love what God
does not want us to love, because totally un-
worthy ? An illustration will make this clear.
You have a strong affection for your mother
and for a friend you have known and loved from
boyhood. Your friend calumniates the mother
that bore you, to her great sorrow and unhap-
piness. The greater love you bear your mother
compels you to abandon your friend.

So likewise in the life to come, you will see
things as they are from the view-point of God.
You will only love what He loves. If, indeed,
there were anything in Hell or on earth that
would interfere with the everlasting happiness
of heaven, God would divert your soul from
considering it. Make the comparison. God
and your unrepentant child in Hell are in a
relation similar to your mother and your false
friend. The higher love leads you instantly to
abandon the one who die# " having trodden

Digitized by

Hell.

585

under foot the Son of God, . . . and having
offered an affront to the Spirit of grace " (Heb.
x. 29). *

Is not every man punished enough in this life ?
I believe that the sinner has his hell here.

Would not a limited punishment hereafter suf-
fice?

" It is not true . . . that the culprit ex-
periences already in this life chastisement
enough for his faults. Gnawing remorse indeed
torments him ; the infirmities produced by his
irregularities grow on him, and the disastrous
consequences of his perverse conduct weigh him
down ; but neither is he wanting in means to
blunt the sharp sting of his conscience ; neither
is he devoid of artifices to neutralize the evil
effects of his revels, nor short of resources to
come clear out of the false positions in which
his excesses have involved him" (J. Balmds,
" Letters to a Sceptic,' * iii.)

Our Lord plainly taught that the sinner
might be fairly well content in this life. " Woe
to you (wicked) that are rich; for you have
your consolation 99 (Luke vi. 24); and in the
parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke xvi. 19—
30), "Son, remember that thou didst receive
good things in thy life-time, and Lazarus evil
things ; but now he is comforted, and thou art
tormented.' '

Digitized by

586 The Question Box.

It is unreasonable to suppose that a punish-
ment hereafter of limited duration would an-
swer just as well. Taking men as they are, we
know that only the threat of an eternity of
punishment would be a sufficient curb to their
evil passions and desires in this life, and
therefore a means of their repentance. A sin-
ner could brave God with impunity; he could
set at naught the whole moral law when it
went counter to his present, sensible enjoy-
ment, if he knew that after a certain term of
punishment — be it ten, one hundred, or one
thousand years — he were to enjoy an eternity
of happiness. Hell would cease instantly to be
the sanction of the moral order; it would be-
come a Purgatory, inspiring little or no terror
to the heart of the average man. Every man
knows that there is no probation in the life to
come, and that he is responsible to God for
the life he has lived on earth.

Is it conceivable in reason that God should con-
sign the great majority of the human race to
eternal perdition ?

The Catholic Church never advanced such a
doctrine. Some individual writers — Catholic
and Protestant — have done so, but it is the part .
of wisdom not to mistake the private specula-
tions of a few concerning* the unfathomable
secrets of God for the teachings of Christianity.

Digitized by

Hell.

587

Is it just that the entire pagan world — more
than two-thirds of the race — should be damned to
eternal hell-fire?

The Reformers held such a teaching as the
logical consequence of their false notion of
original sin, but the Catholic Church never did.
With Luther, Calvin, and others the virtues of
the heathen were vices deserving of damnation
(Mohler's Symbolism, Book I. ch. ii. sec. vii.),
and consequently there was no possibility of
their salvation. The Catholic Church con-
demns strongly these false and cruel teach-
ings, and holds most firmly that no one,
pagan or Christian, will ever be eternally pun-
ished hereafter who has not with full knowl-
edge and deliberate consent turned his back
upon God, and died in mortal sin.

Is not the fear of hell a low, unworthy motive
on which to base our moral life ?

We are willing to grant that it is not the
highest motive, which is sorrow for sin and ser-
vice of God out of pure love for Himself alone.
But all men are not saints, nor are all
striving after perfection. This pretended con-
tempt for the motive of fear is without basis in
reason or the Word of God.

"The fear of the I/>rd,M says Holy Writ,
"is the beginning of wisdom* 9 (Prov. ix. 10).
Those that do not fear God will never love Him.

Digitized by

588

The Question Box,

So in the Old L,aw God continually appeals tc
this motive (Ps. xxxiii. 10, lxv. 16, cxiii. n ;
Eccl. v. 6; Dan. vi. 26), and Jesus Christ is
equally explicit: " rather fear Him that can
destroy both soul and body in Hell" (Matt. x.
28. Cf. Matt. iii. 7).

In this life men value the motive of fear, as is
evident from the punishments in every law code
of the world. The same men who deny it as a
motive in the moral order will often tremble
before the bar of public opinion when voiced in
the denunciation of the public press, or will,
again, at the hour of death dread the prospect
of facing the God they strove vainly in life to
deny.

Is not the doctrine of eternal punishment re-
pugnant to the spirit of the age?

Yes, undoubtedly, if by "the spirit of the
ageM you mean the spirit of modern unbelief
which denies the existence of a personal God
as the Creator, Lord, or Final End of all crea-
tures ; which is jealous of the supernatural, in-
tolerant of dogma, sceptical of grace, contemp-
tuous of the Word of God; independent of
tradition, loving self-indulgence, judging all
things by merely natural standards ; which has,,
in fine, lost all idea of responsibility to God, and
all sense of sin and its immeasurable malice.

It is the tendency also of human legislation

Digitized by

Hell.

589

to lessen the penalty for crime. No nation —
and rightly too — would tolerate for a moment
to-day the fearful dungeons and tortures of a
few hundred years ago. Many indeed inveigh
most strongly against the justice of capital pun-
ishment, while others falsely regard all criminal
penalties as merely corrective.

But the eternal law of God does not change
with the varying laws of men. Hell exists be-
cause of the free, deliberate refusal of the
rational creature to fulfil the destiny for which
he was created.

To the true Christian of any age the only
question can be : Is the doctrine of eternal pun-
ishment true ? And reason, Scripture, and the
infallible witness of the living voice of God's
true Church say that it is.

Digitized by

y Google

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE

The Existence of God — Argument from design, i
Common consent of mankind, ... 3
The Moral Argument, .... 3
Savage tribes and belief in God, . .5
Morality and Atheism, .... 6

Divine Providence — Prosperity of the wicked, . 7
Prosperity and adversity and the future life, 8

Moral and Physical Evil — and God's goodness, 9

The Immortality of the Soul— Common con-
sent of mankind, 13

Inequality and sufferings of this life, . . 13
Incompleteness of this life, . . . .14
Argument from conscience, ... 14
Argument from the spirituality of the soul, . 1 5

The Necessity of Revelation— historical argu-
ment, 15

Religion and Environment, . . . .17
Religion and Emotional Excitement, . 19

Indifferentism — reaction from early Protestant-
ism, 20

Necessity of Creeds, 22

Indifference to doctrine wholly unscriptural, 24
Contrast between the Church and the sects, 25

Mysteries — Why and when to be believed, . . 29
Absurdity of a priori objection to them, . 31
Impartiality of mind, reasonable and unrea-
sonable, 32

Mysteries in nature, 33

Mysteries inevitable in revealed truth, . .35
590-91

Digitized by Google

592

Table of Contents.

PAGB

Mysteries and private interpretation of Scrip-
ture,

The Trinity,

Christian Faith.

36
37
38

Miracles — In relation to known laws of nature, . 40
Do not imply a change in God, . . 41
In relation to occult laws of nature, . .41
Proper evidence to prove miracles, . . 42
True and false miracles, . . . .43

The Gospels, 45

The Divinity of Christ— Not antecedently in-
credible, 48

No Christianity without it, 49
Christ's own assertion of it, . . . . 49
The Apostles' belief and teaching about it, 52
Evidence from Christ's Miracles, . . .53
The prophetical argument, . . . 55
Argument from Christ's sanctity of life and

doctrine, 56

Argument from overruling Providence, . 57
Explanation of His rejection by the Jews, . 59

The Incarnation and Redemption— Two na-
tures in one person, .... 60
Equity of one atoning for another's sin, . 62

The Bible as a Rule of Faith, ... 63
Inconsistency of this Rule, ... .65
Bible dependent on a teaching Church, . 65
Difficulties in understanding it, . . .65
Not appointed to be the only Rule of Faith, 69
Historical objections to Protestant view, . 70
It cannot be a universal Rule, ... 70
Breeds inevitable dissension, . . .70
Difficulties in John v. 39 and Acts xvii. 11, 73

Digitized by

Google

Table of Contents. $93

PAGE

Divine Tradition and the Catholic Rule

of Faith, 75

The Church and the canon and inspiration of

Scripture, 76

Intrinsic evidence of inspiration, . . .80
Versions of Scripture in the Middle Ages, 83
Versions of Scripture in Reformation times, 84
The Church and Bible reading, ... 86
The Bible in the Public Schools, . . .89

Creation in Six Days, 90

Who was Cain's wife ? 91

The Age* of the Human Race, ... 93

The Vicious Circle— How the Church and the

Bible mutually prove each other, . .96

The Church — Conditions for reception into the

Church, 98

Kindly feelings of Catholics for non-Catholics, 100
Opposition of converts' relatives, . .101

Visibility of the Church, .... 103

Infallibility of the Church— argument from

Scripture, 105

Argument from Reason, . . 105
Infallibility and liberty of thought, . . 114
Luther and liberty of thought, . . 121
The Church's legislative authority, . . 122
Infallibility and personal religion, . 123
Why so many reject the Church's claims, . 125
The Church and direct union of the soul with

God, 127

The Church and the private conscience, . 129

INDEFECTIBILITY OF THE CHURCH— Did the

Church actually err? . . . . 131
True and false Reformation, . . 13?

Digitized by

594

Table of Contents.

PAGK

Savonarola, 134

Unity of the Church, 135

Definition of new Dogmas, . . . 136
Development of Doctrine, . . . .138
The Church and modern Science, . . 140
Are Protestants agreed on Essentials ? .142
Charity as a bond of unity, . . . 146
Unity and the Great Schism of the West, . 147

Holiness of the Church. — Human and divine

elements in the Church, . . . 148
How a sinful man remains a Catholic, . 150
Holiness outside the Church, . . \ 152
Unholy Protestant doctrines, . . .152
Summary of the Church's note of holiness, 154
Lack of material prosperity of Catholic

peoples 155

Keeping faith with heretics, . . . 1 59
John Huss and the Council of Constance, 160
The Church and Intemperance,
Does the end justify the means ?

Mental Reservation, ....
Catholics and Superstitious Practices,
The Jesuits and the Monita Secreta,

Catholicity of the Church,

Protestantism lacks this note,
Qualities of true Catholicity, . . .173
Relative numbers of Catholics, Protestants,

and Greeks, 174

Anglican claim to Catholicity and continuity, 174
Origin of the term Catholic, . . .181
Origin of the term Protestant, . 182
The term Roman Catholic and Romanist, 183
The Greek Church, its history and status, 184

Digitized by Google

161
163
165
167
168
169
171

Table of Contents.

595

PAGE

Apostolicity of the Church— Protestant claim

to this Note 187

Apostolical Succession* . . . . 188
Anglican, Greek and Catholic claims com-
pared, 191

The Branch theory, .... 192
The Anglican Church not founded by St. Paul, 194
Why Anglicans are Protestants, . . 195
The Charge of Intolerance, . . .196
. Explanation of " outside the Church no salva-
tion," 197

Why Catholics are forbidden to join in Prot-
estant worship, 202

And in Spiritualistic Seances, . . 206
Catholics and Christian Science and The-

osophy, 209

The Church and persecution, . 218
Protestants and persecution, . .221

The Spanish Inquisition, . . . 226
Persecution of the Albigenses, . . . 232
Massacre of St. Bartholomew's day, . 233
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, . . 238
Persecutions by Queen Mary of England, 240
Excommunication, and prohibition to read

bad books, 241

Cremation, 242

Condemnation of the Freemasons and other

Secret Societies, 244

Catholics and the Public Schools, . . 248
The Occasions of Sin— dancing, card-playing,

theatres, 252

Sunday Observance— the Jewish Sabbath abol-
ished, holydays, 254

Digitized by

596

Table of Contents.

PAGE

Abstinence and Fasting, .... 256
Women in the Churches, . . . .259
The Sign of the Cross, . . . ' . 259

Scapulars, 261

Ceremonies— expensive church buildings, . 261
Devout Practices — incense, holy water, candles, 267
Vestments, medals, the Agnus Dei, Holy

Ashes, 272

Blessed Palm, Church Bells, the Forty Hours,

the Vespers, 272

Saint Peter in Rome, 274

The Papal Authority — Scriptural and historical

evidence, 278

Is Christ the Rock ? 282

Relation of Peter to Christ and the other

Apostles, 283

The Popes in History— Alexander VI.'s division

of newly discovered countries, . . 292
The fable of a female pope, . . . 293

The false decretals, 294

Plurality of Popes, 295

Papal primacy and Episcopal authority, . 298
Perpetuity of the papal power, . . 298
The Pope and anti-Christ, . . . 299
The Pope and external pomp, . . 299
The Pope and his temporal dominions, . 300
Papal Infallibility— antecedent probability, 302
Limitations of papal infallibility, . . 304
St. Peter's denial of our Saviour, . . 308
The case of Pope Liberius, . . . 308
The case of Pope Honorius, . . . 309

Unworthy popes, 311

The papacy and Galileo, . . . .312

Digitized by Google

Table of Contents. 597

PAGE

The Suppression of the Jesuits, . 320

The papacy in the Middle Ages, . . t 320

The papacy and civil allegiance, . . 322
The Doctrine, of Justification— by Faith

alone, 326

Total Depravity, 329

Catholic doctrine of good works, . 330
Works of Supererogation, . . . 333
Prayer — its necessity — in relation to God's fore-
knowledge, 335

Repetitions in prayer — the Rosary, . 338

Efficacy of prayer, , . . . . 342

Protestant ending of the Lord's Prayer, 344
The Sacraments— their nature and institution and

ministry, 345

The Baptism of John, .... 353

Feet-washing not a sacrament, . . . 353

The indelible mark imprinted, . . 354

Baptism— Original Sin 354

Necessity of Baptism, . 356
Different kinds of Baptism, . . . 358
Not merely an external ceremony, or figura-
tive 359

Infants dying unbaptized, .... 361

Rebaptizing converts, .... 362

Protestant Sponsors, 363

Baptism by Immersion, .... 363

Infant Baptism, ...... 367

Baptism for the dead 369

Confirmation — nature and institution, . . 370

Penance — different grades of guilt in sinners, 372
Auricular Confession — Scripture and patristic

proofs, 374

Digitized by

598

Table of Contents,

PAGE

The power of absolution a delegated one, 380
The dispositions of a true penitent, . 381
Direct confession to God, . . . .382
Influence of confession on the priest, . 384
Secrecy of the confessor, .... 384
Alleged modern origin of auricular confession, 385
Effect of confession on character, . . 389
When confession is dispensed with, . 393
Various objections considered, . . . 393
Confession in the Anglican Church, . 397
" Conversion " and " change of heart," . 398
Confession not degrading, . . . 398

Indulgences— explanation and history of, . 400
Never permitted to be sold, . . . 409
Meaning of partial indulgences, . . .413
Offered for the dead, . . . . 414
The Jubilee explained, . . . .415

The Holy Eucharist — Explanation of the dogma

of Transubstantiation, . . . . 416
Exposition of John vi., . . . .419
The words of Institution at the Last Supper, 428
Arguments for figurative meaning considered, 432
Argument of impossibility considered, . 435
The Real Presence among Anglicans, . 441
Communion under one kind, . . , 442
Destruction of the Sacred Host— Genuflex-
ions—fasting before Communion, . . 446
Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, . 447

The Mass — its meaning— high Mass and low, . 449
A true sacrifice, identical with that of Cal-
vary, 450

Mass and the Souls in Purgatory, • . . 454
Grave obligation to hear Mass, . . 455

Digitized by

Table of Contents.

599

PAGR

The Liturgy used at Mass, . . .455
Paying money for Masses, . . < . 457
Use of the Latin tongue, .... 461
Orders — their necessity and institution, . 466
Orders in the primitive Church, . . 467
Why the priest is called Father, . . 468

Religious Communities— their origin and nature, 469
The Evangelical counsels and the vows, . 471
Calumnies against the monks of the Middle

Ages, 474

Alleged cruel treatment of Nuns, . . 477
Why women cannot be ministers of religion, 478

Anglican Orders— -the Pope's bull against them, 479

Celibacy — origin — reasons for it, . . . 483
Scriptural and other objections considered, 491
Married clergy of the East, . . . 497

Matrimony — its indissolubility proved, . . 497
Dispensations for impediments, . . . 504
Napoleon's Case, and that of Jerome Bona-
parte, . . . . . 505
Luther sanctioned bigamy, . . .507

Mixed Marriages— reasons for Church's aversion

for them, ...... 508

Conditions under which they are permitted, 5 10
When marriages of Protestants may be valid, 511
Prohibited times for solemnizing marriages, 5 1 3

Extreme Unction — its institution and nature,' . 513

The Blessed Virgin and the Saints — The ac-

cusation of idolatrous worship, . . 515
The title, "Mother of God"— dignity of

Mary, 517

Veneration of Mary not hurtful but advanta-
geous to religion, 522

Digitized by

6oo Table of Contents.

PAGE

Christ's treatment of His Mother not disre-
spectful, 525

Mary and Christ's mediatorship, 527
The Immaculate Conception, . 529
Mary's perpetual virginity, . . -534

Her Assumption, 536

The Rosary, 537

The Saints— Honor paid to them, ... 538
Miracles worked by their Intercession, . 546

Images and Pictures, 547

Relics, 553

Pilgrimages, ....... 557

The Hereafter— The General and Particular

Judgments, 559

Limbo, 559

The Resurrection of the Body, ... 560
Purgatory — Explained and proved, 562

Heaven, .568

Hell— The personality of the devil, . . 570
Probation after death, . . . .571
Eternal punishment and God's goodness, 575
The number of the lost, . . • . 586

Digitized by

GENERAL INDEX.

Abstinence on Friday, 256.
Agnus Dei, the, 272.
Albigenses, persecution of, 232.
Alexander VI., Pope, 311.
Anglican Church, 174-181, 191, 194.

Church and confession, 397.

orders, 479.
Anglicans and Real Presence, 441.
Anti-Popes, 147.

Apocryphal Books of the Bible,
70. 77-

Apostolicitv of Church, 187-196.
Apostolical succession, 187-196.
Ashes, Blessed, 272.
Assumption of Mary, 536.
Atonement, doctrine of, 60-2.
Attendance on Protestant services,

Baptism, 353-369.

of Converts, 98.
Bartholomew's day, St., Massacre

on, 233-238.
Bells, for churches, 272.
benediction of the Blessed Sacra-
ment, 447-8.
Bible, the, 63-74.

and Protestants, 63-74.

and Rule of Faith, 63-74.

Obscurities in, 65-72.

and the Catholic Church, 65-74.

and Tradition, 75-89.

Canonical Books of, 76-78.

and Luther, 77.

Inspiration of, 78.

in Middle Ages, 82-89.

.Versions of, 84, 85.

in the Schools, 89.

and Church, prove each other,
96, 97.
Blessed Virgin, 515-535-
Books, dangerous ones forbidden,
241.

Branch theory, 193.

Cain, his wife, 91-93.
Candles, blessed, 268.
Canon of Scripture and the Church,
77-

Card-playing, 252.

Catholicity of the Church, 169-186.

Catholic nations and temporal pros-
perity, 155.
when term first used, 181.

Celibacy of clergy, 473-497.

Ceremonies, 261-265.

Certainty of faith, 105-131.

Christ, Divinity of, 48-60.

Christian Science, 209-217.

Church and Bible prove each other,
96, 97.

Conditions of membership, 97-8.

Visibility of, 103-5.

her teaching authority, 105-131.

Infallibility of, 105-131.

Perpetuity of, 109-113.

and Reason, 120, 140-5.

authority of, 122.

and personal relationship to
God, 123, 124, 127, 129.

and conscience, 129, 130.

Indefectible, 131-135.

Unity of, 135-148.

and Science, 140.

Holiness of, 148-165.

Catholicity of, 169-186.

number of adherents, 174.

and Apostolicity, 187-196.

obligation of attending, 455.
Churches, costly and beautiful, 265.
Civil allegiance and the Papacy,
322.

Clerical Celibacy, 473-497.
Communion in one kind, 442-6.
Communities, Religious, 469-479.
Conception, Immaculate, 137.
Confession in the Anglican Church,

Sacramental, 374-400.

601

Digitized by Google

602

General Index.

Confirmation, 370.

Conscience, 14, 15, 18.

Constance, Council of, and John

Huss, 159, 160.
Contemplative orders, 473-4.
Conversion, nature of, 19.

conditions necessary for, 98.

hindrances to, 125-127.

a duty, 196-201.

Catholic meaning of, 398.

Protestant meaning of, 398.
Converts, baptism of, 98.
Counsels of Perfection, 469-479.
Creation in six days, 90, 142.
Cremation, 242-4.
Cross, sign of, 259.

Dancing, 252.

Decretals, false, 294.

Deposition of civil rulers by the

popes, 320.
Depravity, total, 329.
Development of doctrine, 136.
Devil, the, 570.

Different grades of guilt in sin, 372.
Dispensations for marriage, 510.
Divinity of Christ, 48-60.
Divorce, 495.

Divorce and Napoleon, 504.
Doctrinal development, 136-139.
Dreams, believing in, 167.

Eddy, Mrs., 209-217.
Education and the Church, 248-252.
Ember days, 258.
Emotion and religion, 19.
England, Church of, 174-181, 191,
194.

Environment and religion, 16.

Episcopal Church, 174-181, 191, 194.

Episcopalian orders, 479.

Essential and non-essential doc-
trines, 20-29, 142-5.

Eucharist, the Holy, 416-466.
and Scripture, 419-434.

Eucharistic presence of Christ, 438.

Evil, moral, existence of, 27-8.

Evil, physical and moral, 9-12.

Excommunication, 196-201, 241.

Extreme Unction, Sacrament of, 513-
S14.

Faith, nature of, 18.

necessity of, 23, 32.

Unity of, 24.

and Reason, 33-39.

and the bible, 63-74.

of learned and simple, 135.

certainty of, 105-131.
False decretals, 294.
Fasting, 257-8.

before Communion, 447.
Father, as a title for a priest, 467.
Festivals, 253.

Fortune-tellers, consulting, 167.
Forty Hours Devotion, 273. \
Freemasons and the Church, 244-
248.

Friday abstinence, 256.

Galileo and the Papacy, 312-320.
Genuflexions, 446.
God, Existence of, 1-12.

Existence, argument from de-
sign, 1.

Existence from moral law, 3-5.
Existence, Causality, 3.
Existence, Future life, 8.
Foreknowledge and hell, 575,
581.

Providence of, 7, 8.
Good faith in non-Catholics, 101.
works, Catholic doctrine of, 330.
works, Protestant doctrine of,
331.

Gospels, the, 45-47.

Apocryphal, 46.
Greek Church, 184-6, 191.

Heaven, 568.
Hell, 570-589.

Holiness of the Church, 148-165.

and Church membership, 150.

outside the Church, 152.
Holydays, 253.
Holy Ghost, sin against, 373.
Honorius, Pope, 309.
Huguenots, Persecution of, 233.
Human Race, age of, 93-95.
Huss, John, 159.

Images and Pictures, 547-553.
Immaculate Conception, 137.

Digitized by

General Index.

603

Immortality of soul, 13-19.
Incarnation, the, 60.
Incense, 267.
Indifferentism, 90-39, *45«
Indulgences, 400-414.
Infallibility of Church, 105-151.

of the Popes, 304-326.
Inquisition, Spanish, 226^232,
Inspiration of Bible, 78-81.
Intemperance, Church's Attitude

towards, 161.
Intolerance, 196-259,
Invocation of Saints, 515-535.

Jesuits and the Papacy, 320.
oan of Arc and the Popes, 312.

Pope, fable of, 293.
ubilee, tfoe, 415.
udgment, (he, 559.
ratification, CathoKc doctrine of,
3^6.

Protestant doctrine of, 328.

Latin language in liturgy, 461-466.
Lenten observance, 257.
Liberius, Pope, 308.
Liberty of thought and infallibility,

114-131.
Limbo, 559.

Lord's Prayer, its Protestant ending,
342.

Luther and divorce, 507-8.

and freedom of thought, mi.

and Savonarola compared, 134.
Lying, never allowed, 159, 165.

Marriages, mixed, 508.

dispensations for, 510.
Mary, the Mother of God, 515-535.

Queen of England, 240.
Massacre on St Bartholomew's day,

233-23B.
Mass, the Sacrifice of, 449-466.

difference between high and
low, 449.

Scripture proof of, 450-3.

and the souk in purgatory; 454.

liturgical prayers of, 455.

the stipend paid for* 457. ,

obligation of attending, 455.
Materialism, 16.

Matrimony, Sacrament of, 495.
Medals, 271.
Mental reservation, 165.
Middle Ages, monks of, 474.
Millennium, the, 561.
Miracles, 40^44, 388, 545.
Mixed Marriages, 508.
Money paid for Masses, 457.
Monita Seer eta, 168.
Monks and nuns, 469-479.
Moral evil, existence of, 27-8.
Mysteries, 29-38.

Nantes, Revocation of Edict of, 23ft- '
240.

Napoleon and divorce, 504-5.
Nuns and monks, 469-479.

Occasions of sin, 252.

Omniscience of God and prayer, 335.

Orders, Religious, 145.

Anglican, 479.

Holy, Sacrament of, 466-8.

religious, 469-479.
Original sin, 354-6.

Palms, Blessed, 272.
Pantheism, 16.
Papacy in History, 292-326.
Papal authority, 278-3267

authority and civil allegiance
292-326.

Infallibility, 304-326.
Penance, Sacrament of, 374-400.

works of, 372.
Penances, canonical, 403-406.
Perfection, Councils of, 469-479.
Persecution, 218-242.

by Protestants, 221-242.
Peter and the other Aposdes, 286-
289.

Bishop of Rome, 274-8.
Pilgrimages, 557.
Pope and Anti-Christ, 299.

and the Bishops, 298.

not impeccable, 306.

not inspired, 306.

and Galileo, 312-320.
Pope's Temporal dominions, 30a
Popes, wicked ones, 148.
Prayer, objections to, 335.

Digitized by

604

General Index,

Probation after death, 571.
Protestant Baptism, 362.

doctrine of Atonement, 454.

when term first used, 182. .

services, attendance on, 201.
Protestantism tends to Infidelity, 119.

and Reason, 120.

lacks note of unity, 146.

lacks note of holiness, 152-3.

lacks the note of Catholicity,
171-2.

lacks note of Apostolicity, 187,
190.

Public penances, 403-406.

Schools and the Church, 248-
252.

Purgatory and the Mass, 454.
proof of, 562-568.

Real Presence, 416-466.

Reason alone not sufficient, 16, 17.

and Faith, 33-36.
Redemption, Doctrine of, 60, 62.
Reformation from within, 132-135.

The, 132-135.
Relics, 553.

Religion and environment, 16.

and emotion, 19.
Religious Communities, 469-479.
Repetitions in prayer, 338-9.
Reservation, mental, 165.
Resurrection of the body, 560.
Revelation, necessity of, 13.
Rock, Peter is the, 282-286.
Romanist an offensive term, 183.
Rosary, the, 338-9, 537-8.

Sabbath, Jewish, changed, 254.
Sacraments, the, 345"353«
Sacrifice of the Mass, 449-466.
Saints, Invocation of, 515-558.
Saloons, Church's attitude towards,
161.

Salvation, conditions of, 196-201.

outside the Church, 196-201.
Satisfaction for sin, 10, 11.
Savonarola and Luther compared,
134.

Scapulars, 167-260.

Science and the papacy, 312.

Science, Christian, 209-217.

Schism of the West, 147-8, 295.
Schools, Bible in, 89.

Public, and the Church, 248-252.
Scriptures (see Bible).
Secret Societies and the Church,

244-248.
Septuagint, the, 77.
Sign of the Cross, 259.
Sin, actual, effects of, 9, 10.

against the Holy Ghost, 373.

different grades of guilt in, 372.

Original, nature of, 9.
Sinners, how treated by the Church,
150.

Six days of creation, 90, 142.
Societies, Secret, and the Church,

244-248.
Soul, immortality of, 13-19.
Spanish Inquisition, 226-232.
Spiritualism, 206.
Succession, Apostolical, 187-196.
Sunday observance, 254.
Supererogation, works of, 333.
Superstition and Catholics, 167.

Temporal prosperity and the Church,

_ 155.
Theatres, 252.
Theosophy, 217, 218.
Total depravity, 329.
Tradition, Divine, 75-89.
Transubstantiation, 416-418, 438.
Trinity, the, 37-38.

Unity of the Church, 135-148.
Universalism, 571-2.

Vernacular language and Mass, 461-

466.
Vespers, 273.
Vestments, Sacred, 270.
Vicious Circle, 96, 97.
Vows, religious, 469-479.

Washing of feet not a sacrament,

353.

Water, Holy, 268.
Western Schism, 295.
Will, freedom of, 11 , 12.
Women in Church, 259.

and preaching, 478.
Works of penance, 372, 400-414.

Digitized by

INDEX OF AUTHORS.

A Kempis, Following of Christ, 339,
557-

Allies, Church and State, 281.

The See of Peter, 281, 282, 288.
The Throne of the Fisherman,
281.

Alnatt, Cathedra Petri, 276, 281.
Alphonsus Liguori, St., Verita della

Fede, 290.
Alzog, Universal Church History,
159, 160, 186, 298, 320, 380,
458, 468.
Ambrose, St., Baptism, 358.
Amherst, History of Catholic Eman-
cipation, 223.
Apostles, Doctrine of the, 365.
Arduin, La Religion et Science, 91.
Audin, Life of Luther, 87.
Augustine, St., on Genesis, 90.
The City of God, 91, 546.
The Unity of the Church, 145.
Contra Manich., 182.
De Baptismo, 358.
De Nat. et Grat., 533.
Contra Faust., 540.

Backus, History of the Baptists, 225.
Bagshawe, The Church, 114, 194,
3i8.

Baker, Augustine, Holy Wisdom,
339-

Balfour, Foundations of Belief, 6.
Balme*s, Letters to a Skeptic, 27, 585.
Catholicity and Protestantism

Compared, 159, 232.
Bancroft, History of the United

States, 225.
Bede, St., Historia, 177.
Bellarmin, De Indulgentiis, 406.
Bellasis, Was Barlow a Bishop ? 483.
Benedict XIV., On Canonization,

547.

Beringer, Indulgences, 406.
Berti, Galile*e, 319.

Biblical Encyclopedia, Baptism, 366.
Blanchy, Du, Extra Ecclesiam non

est Salus, 200.
Bloomfield, 285.

Bougaud, The Divinity of Jesus

Christ, 57.
Bouquard, Galile*e, 320.
Brantome, Vie de M. l'Amiral de

Chastillon, 235.
Breen, Introduction to the Study of

Holy Scripture, 82.
Brennan, What Catholics have done

for Science, 142.
Bridgett, The Ritual of the New

Testament, 74.
Brownson, O. A., Works, 119.
Bruno, Faa di, Catholic Belief,

356.

Buckle, History of Civilization, 236.
Bulletin, the Catholic University,
160.

Burnet, History of the Reformation,
481.

Calvin, John, Institutes, 360.
Com. sur 1'Evang., 518.

Caramuel, Theologia Fundamen-
tals, 317.

Carle, Sur l'enfer, 575.

Catechism of Third Plen. Council,
359-

Cave, Script. Ecc. Hist. Literaria,
274.

Chambers' Encyclopedia (Salem

Witchcraft), 230.
Civilta Cattolica, Massacre of St.

Bartholomew, 234.
Clarke, R. F. (Cath. Truth Soc),

295-

Clifford, Bishop (on Creation), 91.
Cobbett, History of the Reforma-
tion, 477.
Collier, Ecclesiastical History, 481.
Conception, Immaculate, 529-534.

605

Digitized by Google

6o6

Index of Authors.

Coppens, Is Freemasonry anti-
Christian? (Am. Eccl. Re-
view), 246.
Cox, The Pillar and Ground of the

Truth, 114.
Cutts, Dr., Turning Points of Eng-
lish History, 83.
The Middle Ages, 475.
Cyprian, St., Confirmation, 361.
on Baptism, 364.
Ep. ad Cornel., 544.
Cyril of Jerusalem, St., on the Eu-
charist, 418, 429.

Dalgairns, The Holy Communion,
416, 439.

Dawson, Sir J. W., Modern Science

in Bible Lands, 95.
Didon, Life of Christ, 58.
Dietlein, Evang., Ave Maria, 533.
Dollinger, The Reformation, 134.

First Age of the Church, 291.

Papal Fables, 294.
Driscoll, God, 5.

The Soul, 15.
Dublin Review, Canon of the New
Testament, 78.

The Reformation, 134.

Missions, 134.

Persecutions, 222, 229, 231, 238.
Cremation, 244.
Eternal Punishment, 575.
Duke, King, Prophet and Priest, 114.

Ecclesiastical Review, American,
Coppens on Freemasonry, 246.
Record, Irish, 309.

Eddy, Mrs., Science and Health,
209.

Ellicott, Bishop, Commentary, 275.

Elliott, Life of Christ, 48, 58.

English Catholic Bishops, Vindica-
tion of the Pope's Bull on An-
glican Orders, 449.

Epinois, H. de, l'Galile'e, 315, 319.

Epiphanius, St., Adv. Collyr., 524.

Estcourt, Anglican Ordinations, 483.

Faber, the Blessed Sacrament, 416.
Flanagan, Canon, History of the
Church in England, 223.

Flint, Anti-theistic Theories, 6.
Fouard, Life of Christ, 58.
Fox, Religion and Morality, 3, 5.
Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnato, 311.
Freppel, Discourses on the Divinity

of Christ, 59.
Froude, History of England* 237.

Galwey, Ritualism, 483.

Ganss, Mariolatry (Am. Cath. Quar-
terly), 526.

Gasquet, Henry VIII. and the Eng-
lish Monasteries, 477.

Gerard, Condition of Catholics under
James I., 222.

Ghisleri, Almanacco dei Liberi Mu-
ratori, 243.

Gigot, Biblical Lectures, 78, 81 r 82,
85-

Introduction to Holy Scripture,
78, 80, 82.
Gebler, Von, Galilee, 31s, 317, 319.
Gibbons, Cardinal, Our Christian
Heritage, 5, 17, 336V
The Faith of our Fathers, 140,
220.

The Ambassador of Christ. 339.
Green, History of the English Peo-
ple, 178, 481.
Gretser, The Monita Secreta, 169.
Guibert, Origin of Species, 93.

Haddan and Stubbs, Ecclesiastical

Councils, 176.
Hallam, Constitutional History of

England, 222, 228, 230.
Literature of Europe, 228.
Hamard, Abbe", La Science et i'Ap-

ologe*tique Chretienne, 94.
Harlez, De, World's Parliament of

Religions, 6.
Hecker, I. T., Questions of the Soul

Aspirations of Nature, iai, 122,

329. 330-

Hedley, Bishop, Our Divine Saviour
and other Discourses* 61, 356.
Hefele, History of the Councils, i&x

Cardinal Ximenes, 232.
Hergenrother, Church and State,
160, 200, 225, 238,. 310, 326.
Anti- Janus, 31 r.

Digitized by Google

Index of Authors.

607

Hettinger, Revealed Religion, 17, 34.
The Days of Creation, 90.
The Supremacy of the Apostolic
See, 282, 311.
Hewit, Eternal Punishment, 575.
Heyfin, History of the Reformation,
466.

Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift, 276.
Hilton, Scale of Perfection, 339.
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 366.
Hummelauer, Von, Days of Crea-
tion, 90.

Humphrey, The One Mediator, 347,
453-

Hunter, Outlines of Theology, 347.
Huxley, Evolution and Ethics, 2.
Hutton, Anglican Orders, 483.
Huylenbrowcq, The Monita Secreta,
169.

Ignatius, St, Martyr, Ad TralL, 544.
Immaculate Conception, 529-534.
Innocent III., On Conscience, 130.

Jardine, Torture in England, 230.
Jaugey, Diet. ApoL, 45, 319.
Jerome, St., Letter to Marcella, 259.

Contra Vigilantius, 553.
ohn of the Cross, St., Works, 339.
mngmann, Church History, 160.
urieu; Le Vrai Systeme de l'figlise,
143-

Justin, Martyr, St., Apologia, 255.

Keane, Archbishop, Loyalty to Rome
and Country (Am. Cath. Quar-
terly), 326.

Kenrick, The Primacy of the Apos-
tolic See, 282.
Eternal Punishment, 581.

Lacordaire, Conferences on Jesus

' Christ, 58.
Lalemant, Spiritual Doctrine, 339.
Lambert, Notes on Ingersoll, 60.
Lambing, Sacramentals of the

Church, 269.
Lang, the Making of Religion, 3.
Lardner, Hist, of the Ap. and

Evang., 275.
Laserre, H., Miracles of Lourdes, 546.

Lecky, Rationalism in Europe, 223.

History of European Morals, 524.
Leo XIII., Encyclical on the Bible.
88.

The Christian State, 323.
Bull on Anglican Orders, 482.
Lepicier, Indulgences, 406.
Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord,
50 et seq.
Some Elements of Religion, 5.
Lilly, W. S., on Persecution (in

Dublin Review), 222.
Lingard, History of England, 235.
Antiquities of Anglo-Saxon ch.t
546.

Littledale, The Jesuits, Encyc. Brit.,
165.

Livius, The Blessed Virgin in the

Fathers, 140, 516, 525, 533, 544.
St. Peter, Bishop of Rome, 274,

275, 276, 281, 291.
Lodge, Life of Richelieu, 240.
Loisy, Histoire du Canon de Nbu-

veau Testament, 78.
1* Histoire du Canon de l'Ancien

Testament, 78.
Lougfman, Wm., The Huguenots,

238.

Lubbock, Origin of Civilization, 5.
Luther, Tischreden, 67, 72.

Deutsche Schriften, 518.
Lyons, Christianity and Infallibility,
114. 304.

Maas, Christ in Type and Prophecy,

56.

Macxmnique Revue, The Religion of

Masons, 245.
Maher, Psychology, 15.
Maistre, De, Letters on the Spanish

Inquisition, 231.
Maitland, Dean, The Dark Ages, 84,

i49» 475. 490.
Mallock, Isj Life Worth Living? 112,

117, 201, 567.
MaHoy, G., Geology and Revelation,

91. 142-

Manning, Cardinal, Temporal
Mission of the Holy Ghost, 79.

The Temporal Power of the
Pope, 302.

Digitized by

6o8

Index of Authors.

M alloy, G., Story of the Vatican
Council, 307.
The Vatican Decrees, 326.
Petri Privilegium, 311.
The Eternal Priesthood, 399.
Marshall, Christian Missions, 172.
McLaughlin, Is one Religion as
Good as Another? 26.
The Divine Plan of the Church,
114. 194-

Meignan, Mgr., Le Monde et
1' Homme primitif, 91.

Meric, L'Autre Vie, 575.

Meurin, L., S.J., Holy Images, 552.

Milner, The End of Controversy,
223, 446.

Mohler, Symbolism, 103, 114, 122,

327. 329. 33o. 587.
Moigno, Abbe", Splendeurs de la Foi,

93-
Month, the, Cremation, 244.

Relics of the True Cross, 557.
Moran, Cardinal, Persecutions in

Ireland, 222, 229.
More, Blessed Thomas, Dialogues,

83.

Mullen, T., Canon of the Old Testa-
ment, 78.
Murphy, Cromwell in Ireland, 222.

Neale, History of the Puritans, 223,
226.

Newman, Grammar of Assent, 5.
Essay on Miracles, 45, 557.
Apologia, 117,

Essay on Development, 114, 139.
Historical Sketches, 191.
Difficulties of Anglicans, 146,

311, 516, 523, 531, 533.
Letter to Duke of Norfolk, 326.
Present Position of Catholics,

410.

Letter to Pusey, 525, 529.
Nicholas, The Divinity of Christ, 59.

■ The Virgin Mary, 516:
Nineteenth Century Magazine, Mis-
sions, 172.
Northcote, Mary in the Gospels, 516.
The Roman Catacombs, 563.

O'Brien, History of the Mass, 453,
457-

Origen, Periarchon, xxx.
Oxenham, the Atonement, 62, 139.
Eschatology, 574-5.

Palmer, The Church, 72, 96.
Parsons, Studies in Church History,
238, 507.

Pearson, Minor Theological Works,.

275.

Pennachi, Honorii Causa, 311.
Petilalot, The Virgin Mother, 516.
Pike, Albert, Morals and Dogma of

Freemasonry, 246.
Pius VI., On the Bible, 87.

IX., On Reason, 122.

Salvation and the Church, 198.
Plato, 566.

Proctor, Knowledge, 316.

J., Savonarola and the Reforma-
tion, 135.

Quarterfages, the Human Species, 3.
Quarterly, Am. Cath., the Jesuits,
165.

Moral and physical evil, 12.
Immortality of the soul, 15.
Age of the human race, 94.
Spiritism, 208.
the Inquisition, 231.
Persecutions*, 238, 241.
Freemasonry in Latin America,
248.

the Laws of the Church and

' Secret Societies, 248.
Catholic Free Schools, 252.
Popes in history, 293.
Popes and the Western Schism,
298.

Temporal Power of the Popes,

InlSlibility of the Pope, 305.
Pope Liberius and the Arian

Creed, 300.
Popes and the Jesuits, 320.
Prayer, 336.

Was St. Paul Married ? 492.
The Blessed Virgin, 527.
Miracles, 546.

Ricards, Bishop, Catholic Christi*
anity and Modern Unbelief,
35. 159.

Digitized by

Index of Authors.

609

Rickaby, Persecution, 220. #

Rivington, Authority-Dependence,
281, 309.
The Primitive Church and the
See of Peter, 281.

Robertson, Biblical Researches in
Palestine, 364.

Rock, Hierurgia, 269, 453.

Romanes, Nineteenth Century, 3.

Ronayne, God Knowable and Un-
known, 5.
Religion and Science, 142.

Rousseau, works, 13.
Lettres, 228.

Ruskin, Fors Clavigera, 525.

Ryder, Catholic Controversy, 292,
3".

Rye, England in the Days of Eliza-
beth, 230.

Ryle, Bishop, Divisions on Doctrine
(Am. Cath. Quarterly), 441.

Rymer, Fcedera, 175.

Sacred Heart Review, Divorce in
New England, 505.

Schanz, A Christian Apology, 5, 17,
41, 80, 114, 159, 304.
Galileo, 320.

Shahan, The Blessed Virgin in the
Catacombs, 525.

Sheahan, J. F. , Vain Repetitions, 342.

Shedd, Eternal Punishment, 575.

Smith, Sydney, S.J., Spanish In-
quisition, 232.
Papal Supremacy, 282.
Doctrine of Intention, 349.
Anglican Orders, 483.

Spalding, Bishop, Essays, 159.

Sparks, Life of Washington, 326.

Speakers' Commentary, 275.

Stephen, Sir James, History of Eng-
lish Criminal law, 229, 231.

Stone, Life of Mary Tudor, 241.

Stubbs, Constitutional Hist., 175-6.

Tanquery, Synopsis Theol. Dog.,
174. 318.

Taylor, Canon, Protestant Missions

(Fortnightly Review), 172.
Teresa, St., Autobiography, '339.
Tertullian, Ad Scapulas, 219.

Tertullian, Ad Exorem, 447.

De Corona Militum, 259, 563.

De Praescrip., 352, 479.
Theiner, Annales, 235.
Thomas, St., On Creation, 90.

On Conscience, 130.

On Unbaptized Infants, 359.
Thompson, Monatesseron, 282.
Thurston, The Holy Year, 406, 415.

The Walled-up Nun, 477.
Tyler, Primitive Culture, 3, 6.
Tyrrell, George, S.J., External Re-
ligion, 346.

Vaughan, J. S., Immortality of the
. Soul, 15.

Faith and Folly, 34, 159.

Science and Religion, 142.

Thoughts for all Times, 436, 440.
Verres, J., Luther, 68, 78, 87, 164,508.
Vigouroux, Diction, de la Bible, 78.

Manuel Biblique, 91, 93, 95.

Les Livres de Saints, 93, 95.
Vincent of Lerins, 138.

Ward, Wilfred, Witnesses to the
Unseen, 5.
Tnt Wish to Believe, 33.

Waterworth, Faith of Catholics, 280,
360, 368, 379, 386, 418, 446, 453,
514, 540, 544, 553, 563.

Whiston, Memoirs, 275.

Wieser, J,, Spiritism and Chris-
tianity, 207.

Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of
Catholic Theology, 62, 63,
347. 34?. 379. 4i8, 453. 536.

Wiseman, Cardinal, Science and
Revealed Religion, 142.
Lectures on Catholic Doctrines,
81, 98, 416, 420-436.

World, Catholic, 320.

Wyatt, Life of Lady Jane Gray, 240.

Yorke-Wendt Controversy, 225.
Young, Alfred, Catholic and Protest-
ant Countries Compared, 159.

Zahm, Antiquity of Man (Am. Cath.
Quarterly) , 94.
Bible, Science and Faith, 142.

Digitized by Google

y Google

CATALOGUE

•T THE

PUBLICATIONS

OF THE

CATHOLIC BOOK EXCHANGE,

120 West 6oth Street, Few York*

The Catholic Book Exchange is a
Missionary Institution, organized and con-
trolled by the Paulist Fathers, for the dis-
semination of Catholic literature. Its ob-
ject is to distribute as wide-spread as pos-
sible Books, Pamphlets, and Leaflets at a
cost which provides simply for current ex-
penses. Our purpose is to further the
Apostolate of the Press by the sale of
printed truth and to put the price of Catho-
lic books within reach of all.

The prices quoted in this Catalogue are
the figures at which the book sells at retail.

To the Trade and any one buying in quan-
tities large discounts are offered.

Special discounts on orders accompanied
by CASH.

We prefer to do a Caafc business*

Digitized by

THE APOSTOLATE OF THE PRESS.

The American people are a reading people and a
thinking people. Not always uniformly deep in their
reading and thinking, to be sure ; bat still it would be
folly to ignore in them a certain predisposition to devour
printed matter and to discuss problems social, political,
and religious. Therefore we must not neglect to put be-
fore them, in the form to which they take so kindly, the
reasons why they ought to be Catholics. Much has been
said — you remember bow strongly Father Hecker urged it
— about the A postdate of the Press, and much more ought
to be said and done to develop and apply the principles
which will be plain to any one who thinks a moment.

Ftrmt Need im to Manufacture the Bullets.

There must first be a supply of the right sort of litera-
ture— an abundant supply, at the lowest possible price.
Every means must be adopted for getting this literature
into circulation, so that it will be easy for any one to se-
cure, for the benefit of an interested non-Catholic friend,
a full and sufficient explanation of any particular point in
question. In a word, the country should be flooded with
Catholic literature, so that it will be difficult for any one
to escape it altogether. But this point need not be dwelt
on. We know what a good work is being accomplished
along this line by The Catholic Book Exchange (120
West 60th Street, New York) and other agencies of a
similar nature in other parts of the country. Moreover it
is, although the first, not the greatest need. It is neces-
sary that there should be this supply of ammunition ; it is
still more necessary that there should be soldiers to use it.

Second Need is to get Every One to Fire Them.

. What is mainly needed is the active co-operation of
the large body of intelligent Catholics in utilizing the
literature which issues from the press. 1 There are oppor-
tunities and occasions when a word of explanation, fol-
lowed by the loan or gift of a tract or book suited in
its tone and topic to the person with whom we are deal-
ing, will do wonders. Sometimes hearts are tender and
minds are open to the truth. Then they welcome the
definite authoritative teaching of Holy Church. If, then,
we are prepared, both by sympathy and by knowledge,
what may we not do for Christ's Kingdom and the souls
cf our fellow-men ? This requires zeal, but it also re-
quires tact — if we may say it, Divine tact.

has been established and is conducted with these ends in
view.

A little money spent Judiciously In this way Is casting your
bread on the running waters.

The Catholic Booh Exchange

WORKS OF FATHER HECKEB

CHURCH AND THE AGE :

An Exposition of the Catholic Church
in view of the needs and aspirations
of the present Age.

322 pages; paper, 25 cents; cloth, $1*00
An epoch-making book. It is a book to be read
and re-read, talked over, and then read again.
The relations of intelligence and liberty to the
religious life of the Church are here fully dis-
cussed.

ASPIRATIONS OF NATURE.

360 pages, paper, ,20
Father Hecker in his original way argues himself
in this work, from a basis which supposes the
religious instinct, into the Catholic Church,
where this instinct receives its fullest develop-
ment. It is a most valuable book to an intel-
ligent man who has drifted away from all or-
ganized religion.

QUESTIONS OF THE SOUL.

294 pages, paper, .20
Much that this book contains is a narrative of Father
Hecker's attempt to solve the problems of life
outside the Church and his failure to do so, to-
gether with an enthusiastic and most attractive
description of how the Catholic Church re-
vealed God to his thirsting soul. A well-mean-
ing man will find herein the road to union with
God. For those who have no positive religion
this book is very valuable.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF RELIGION

from the Creation of the World to the
Present Time ; to which is added an
Historical Sketch of the Catholic
Church in the United States.

46 pages, paper, .10
The study of history is the beaten track leading from
religious error to Catholic truth. The first part
of this little work shows the unity and consis-
tency of God 's dealings with men . The second
part, from the pen of Father Hecker, is an in-
vincible argument for^ Catholic truth drawn
from itsrelation to our popular institutions. It
is valuable as a text-book in Sunday-schools.

Digitized by

WORKS OF FATHER HEWIT.

THE TEACHING OF ST. JOHN THE
APOSTLE to the Churches of
A&ia and the World. „

165 pp., 36 full-page illustrations, cloth, $l«OC

This is a new translation of the writings of St. John
the Apostle by one of the ablest scholars of the
day in America, and it offers a specimen of an
improved English version of the sacred canoni-
cal Scriptures. The Catholic Hierarchy of this
day clasps the hand of St. John, on whose head
rested the hand of the Lord Jesus Christ.
From this fact, for the present needs of reli-
gious truth, the writings of St. John acquire
much of their importance.

PROBLEMS OF THE AGE: with
Studies in St. Augustine on Kin-
dred Topics.

440 pages, cloth, . 7 5

This is the best statement in English of some of
the fundamental questions that lie on the bor-
derland between natural and revealed reli-
gions, of original sin and the problem of evil,
etc. For one who thinks for himself we know
of nothing better in English.

Problems of the Age in paper, 287 pages, .25

Studies in St. Augustine in paper, 155 pages, . 2 5

THE KING'S HIGHWAY ;

or, the Catholic Church the Way of

Salvation as revealed in the Holy

Scriptures.

292 pages, cloth, 50 cents ; paper, .25

It is the Catholic Church proved to be divine from
the Scriptural argument. First rate in dealing
with old-fashioned Protestants.

LIFE OF REV. FRANCIS A. BAKER.

205 pages, cloth, .75

Beautiful character sketch of one of the first Paulist
F at hers, and a charming biography of a convert
and a missionary. It contains a full history of
the early beginnings of the Pau lists.

Digitized by

WORKS OF FATHER YOUNG*

CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT
COUNTRIES COMPARED in Civil-
ization, Popular Happiness, Gen-
eral Intelligence, and Morality;

6^6 pages ; paper, 50 cents; cloth, $1.00
4 common argument against the Divinity of the
Church is : See its demoralizing influence on
the civilisation of Catholic countries. Father
Young covers the whole field of social ques-
tions and completely answers all such charges.
The New York Sun says : ** Considering the
scope of Father* Young's book and the extraor-
dinary amount of research required by it, we do
not hesitate to pronounce it the strongest piece
of controversial literature upon the Catholic
side that has been put forth in recent times."

CHURCH MUSIC PUBLICATIONS.

The Catholic Hymnal. Contains 238
hymns, words and music, appropriate to
the festivals and seasons of the htnrgical
and for special devotions. 8vo,
. In lots of 50 and more, 30 cents
per copy. Single copy, . 50

An Order of Divine Praise and
Prayer. A number of prayers and hymns,
with music, suitable for a congregational
service. Specimen copies furnished oni,y
on receipt of 10 cents. 57 pages 24mo,
paper. Per 100, , 3 00

Carols for a Merry Christmas. 38
carols, words and music Stiff cover,
broad 24010, each, .25
Carols for a Joyons Easter. 28 charac-
teristic Easter Carols, words and music.
Stiff cover, broad 24010, each, .25
Carols for the Month of May. 6 carols,
words and music, in praise of Our I,ady.
Stiff cover, broad 24100, each, .10
Congregational Singing. How to es-
tablish it : What to do, and what not to do.
A brief practical treatise. On receipt of
10 cents a copy of this treatise and a speci-
men copy of the Divine Praise and
Prayer will be sent Paper, 3 pp. 8vo, . 10

Digitized by

WORKS OF CARDINAL NEWMAN.

HISTORY OF MY RELIGIOUS
OPINION.

394 pages, cloth, $1.00
This is the well-known masterpiece of polemical
literature {Apologia pro Vita Sua) in which he
answers in a crushing way the charges of Rev.
Charles Kingsley. He gives in it an autobio-
graphy of his religious life.

THE POPE : How far does he con-
trol Conscience ? How far does he
interfere with Citizenship ?

200 pages, paper, .20
This book fully instructs one about the relations of
Catholicity to civil government, how far loyalty
to the Pope can make one disloyal to the State.
In fact all obligations arising from one's duty
as a man, as a citizen, as a Catholic. The
chapter on Conscience is alone worth a dozen
ordinary books, so luminous is the statement
of the inner liberty of Catholics. The book is
especially adapted to lawyers, editors, teach-
ers, ministers, and politicians. It will place
Catholics right on the burning question of love
of country.

MARY. THE MOTHER OF JESUS

136 pages, paper, .20
'This is by all odds the best statement of Catholic
doctrine on the devotion to the Blessed Virgin
in the English language. It was Newman's
celebrated answer to Pusey. It is thorough,
complete, masterly.

CATHOLIC BELIEF :

A Short and Simple Exposition of
Catholic Doctrine.
By Bev. J. Paa Di Bruno

433 pages, paper, .20
The best-known compendium of the teachings of
the Church. A book for the million. Bishops
need it for missionary work among non-Catho-
lics. Priests need it in instructing Converts.
People need it as a handy manual of Christian
Doctrine. Discount for large quantities.

Digitized by

THE LIFE OF CHRIST.

By Bev. Walter Elliott, Baalist.

800 pages. Illustrated by one thousand Illus-
trations. Cloth, $1.00

This Life of Christ is unique in its get-up, devo-
tional in its spirit, and literary in its stymie. It
contains the text of Holy Scripture ; and its
many illustrations make it an exceedingly use*
ful and devotional book.

LIFE OF FATHER HECKER.

By Dr. William Barry.

75 pages, paper, .10

It Is a good summary of the larger life of Father
Hecker by Father Elliott. It originally ap-
peared as a critique in the Dublin Review. It
is a European's estimate of an American and
his influence on the American Church.

NON-CATHOLIC MISSIONS:

What they are. How to give them.

By Bev. Walter Elliott, C.S.P.

Paper, 175 pages, .10

This book is the manual of the New Movement
which has manifested itself so energetically in
giving Missions to non-Catholics. It
should be read by every priest and enterpris-
ing layman in the country.

MISSION HYMNS WITH MUSIC.

32 pages, paper, 5 cents; per 100, $3.00

These hymns are arranged for use of the people in
congregational singing.

MISSION HYMNS WITHOUT MUSIC.

Sameasabove. Single copy, 3 cts.; per ioo, $.1.00

Digitized by

A TRUTH SKKKRR ACT) HIS
ANSWER: What the Catholic
Church Is.

By Bar. A. P. Doyle, FauHst.

32 pages, paper, .05

Tkis brochure is a comprehensive exposkioo of
the inner life of the Catholic Church, written
as an answer to a siacere inquiry for troth.

THE OXFORD MOVEMENT DT

AMERICA ; or, Glimpses <rf Life

in aa Asglicn Seminary.

By Bar, 0. A. Walworth.

175 pages, cloth, $1.00

A most intensely interesting personal narrative of
the rise of latter-day Eptscopalianism. Father
Walworth was a student at the General Theo-
logical Seminary when the Oxford Movement
was in full swing. Many names well known
to-day were in the list also. The part these
actors took in the play is related by one who
was on the stage, and knew them all thor-
oughly. In a simple yet kindly way he tells
many tales out of school.

PLAIN FACTS FOR FAIR MDEDS:

An Appeal to Candor and Common
Sense.

By Bev. George M. Searle, Paulist,

Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at Catho-
lic University of America, Washington, D, C*

360pp.; paper, lOcts.; 100 copies, $6; doth, .60

Father Searle is a convert who knows the Ameri-
can mind well, and in this hand-book presents
the truth in so taking a way that non-Catholics
are charmed with its simple directness. It has
also a double advantage of being prepared as
an answer to the numerous queries coming
' through the "Question Box." There is no
better book to give away in quantities or to
use for the instruction of converts.

Digitized by

DIVINE ARMORY OP HOLY SCRIP-
TURE.

By Rev. Kenelm Vaughan,
Whh ft Preface by Cardinal Gibbons.
Leather, five books in one vol., 1,028 pp., $2.00

It is the Holy Scriptures arranged for devotional
as well as preaching purposes, for the intelli-
gent laity as well as for priests. It classifies
the text of Scripture under appropriate head-
ings, making an admirably digested Concor-
dance, We have nothing like it in a CathoHc
English dress. It will serve nicely as a hand-
book in the revival of Scripture Studies, and
is coming largely into vogue among intelligent
lay people as a Prayer- Book of unusual value,
since it enables one to pray in the words of the
Holy Ghost.

GUIDE FOR CATHOLIC YOUHG
WOMEN, especially for those who
earn their own Hving.
By Rev. George Deshan, Pauliat.

35th edition. 308 pages, cloth, .50

The peculiar charm of this book is its simple and
straightforward earnestness. A working-girl's
whole life is gone over, and the guidance given
is of a most practical kind and in a most sym-
pathetic spirit* It is the work of one thor-
oughly familiar with the spiritual and temporal
needs of the young working-women of Ameri-
ca.— Full of common sense and deeply reli-
gious. The best recommendation the book
can get is the demand every year for two or
three new editions. It is particularly useful
for distribution in Sodalities.

STORIES OF C01TVERSI0NS.

A series of brief but complete Narratives
of Conversions to the true Faith, written
in each case by the Convert.

128 pages, paper, 10 cents ; cloth, .25

These are object-lessons of how the grace of God
leadsmen and women to Catholicity. They
are stories of honest inquiry, courageous
struggle, and great sacrifice, taken from life.
The charm of personal narrative makes these
sketches stranger than fiction and far more in-
teresting.

Digitized by VjQOQ LC

SERMONS BY THE PAULISTS.

SERMONS FOR THE ECCLESIASTICAL
YEAR.

By Very Be v. George Deshon, C.S.P.

In cloth, $1.00

These sermons for every Sunday are useful for
parochial purposes. Father Deshon is a well-
known missionary. In style they are simple,
plain, and forcible.

SERMONS BY THE PAULIST FATHERS.

Vol. I., 476 pages, $1.00

SERMONS BY THE PAULIST FATHERS.

Vol. II., 440 pages, $1.00

These sermons comprise a large variety of topics
and have been preached at various times from
the pulpit of the Paulist Church.

SERMONS OF REV. FRANCIS A.
BAKER, Paulist.

Father Baker was one of the most attractive
preachers of the Church, and this collection of
his sermons has been eagerly sought for on
account of their special charm.

FIVE MINUTE SERMONS.

Vol. I., New Series, 516 pages, cloth, $1.00

This volume contains the Gospel and Epistle for
each Sunday of the year and three well-se-
lected, practical, and pointed Sermonettes for '
the Low Masses. The advantage of this col-
lection is that the sermons are by practical
preachers, have been actually preached, and
after careful revision are now offered to the
Clergy. This is an entirely new volume ; the
sermons have never been published before in
book-form. It makes an excellent manual for
use on the altar. , 5Q

FIVE MINUTE SERMONS.

Volumes I. and II., Old Series, can be supplied at
$1 each.

Digitized by Google

THE MASS BOOK ; with Prayers use-
ful in Catholic Devotion and Ex-
planations of Catholic Doctrines.

64 pages, flexible cover, .05
This is a prayer book for the million. It has all
the necessary prayers. It has, moreover, lucid
explanations adapted even to the most simple.
This is the book to buy in quantities and give
away to the hundreds who cannot afford to
possess high-priced prayer books.

MASS-BOOK FOR NON-CATHOLICS.

Compiled by a Convert.

75 pages, paper, .10
Often non-Catholics come into the Church at fu-
nerals, great festivals, or to hear a sermon.
The Mass is an enigma to them. This little
book is a guide to the Mass. The idea is to
have a supply, of these little books at the door
and have the usher place one in the hands of
each non-Catholic.

CHRISTIAN UNITY.

By Bev. Morgan M. Sheedy.

120 pages; paper, 10 cents; cloth, .60
A hew book on one of the most attractive topics
of the day. The days of theological scalping
have gone by. The best minds are eagerly
discussing the Reunion of Christendom. s
Father Sheedy in his clear, incisive way sug-
gests a new way to Christian Unity.

EUCHARISTIC CONFERENCES.

231 pages, Illustrated, cloth, .50
These are a series of thoughtful and very well pre
pared papers originally read at the first Ameri-
can Eucharistic Congress. They cover many
phases of Eucharistic devotion and thought.

CLEARING THE WAT.

By Bev. Xavier Sutton, Passionist.

150 pages, in paper, .10

This book is intended to clear away difficulties
from the path of honest souls coming to the
Church.

Digitized by

PAMPHLETS.

PATRIOTISM: ITS DOT! AHD TALUS.

By Moot Rev. John Ireland, D.D.

16 pages ; paper, 5 cents ; per 100, $3.00
This is a splendid statement in Archbishop Ire-
land's masterly style of the attitude of the
American citizen to his country. It was origi-
nally delivered as an address before the Loyal
Legion. It is very good for distribution in
quantities to cultivate civic virtue.

TOE INQUIRER'S CATECHISM.

Lead, Kindly Light* Adapted from the Catechism
if Rev. F. JT. Reichart; published with the ap-
proval of the Bishop of So/for d, England.

48 pages, paper, ,05

A short, handy, concise, and cheap manual to give
to those who are inquiring about the Church.
A supply at hand in the church office or con-
fessional will satisfy the demand, and may lead
many who come timidly to ask, into the right
way.

WHY I AM A CATHOLIC.

By Rev. Walter Elliott, CSJV
8 pages ; 3 cents per copy ; per ioo, l.OO

THE HEW raeW-XOfHIKOISM.

A Reply to A. P. A. Calumnies.

By Rev. R- M. Ryan*

129 pages, paper, .20
A calm, well-reasoned, and exhaustive reply to the
various outrageous charges made against the
Church by the A. P. As.

THE REUNION OF CHRISTENDOM.

The Mother Church necessarily the centre to which
all must tend.

By Rev. G. J. Lannert.

32 pages, .05
A good statement of the hopes for Christian Unity.

MISSIONARY OUTU00K IN THE UNITED STATES.

By Rev. Walter Elliott, C.S.P.
16 pages ; 3 cents per copy; per xoo, l.OO

MANUAL OF TOTAL ABSTINENCE.

Prepared by the Catholic Total Abstinence Union
of America.

24 pages, paper, per 100, 2.00

A catechism giving an accurate statement of the
fundamental principles that underlie the Cath-
olic Total Abstinence Movement. Cadet so-
cieties are accustomed to learn this by heart.

Digitized by

TO WMI SHALL WE 00?

By Rev. C. Van dt Ven.

23 pages, paper, .05
Some plain Questions and Answers about the True
Religion. A pamphlet very useful t o point out
to an inquiring: mind the way to the Church.

THE VOICE OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD.

Does it Live f And Wher* ?

By Rev. Edmund Hill, CP.

25 pages, paper, .05
An interesting account of the way by which a uni-
versity student came into the Church, and is
good for use among those seeking the truth.

MEMOIR OF THE VERY REV. AUGUSTINE F.
HE WIT, D.D., Snperiar4tai. of the Paulistg.

16 pages, paper, «05
A monograph of an eminent divine, a great
thinker, and a holy man.

THE RELIGION OF A TRAVELLER.

By Cardinal Manning.

76 pages, paper, .10
This isaccounted to be one of the best bitsof contro-
versial literature in English ; clear, trenchant,
and masterly, as was the mind of the author.

CATECHISM FOR FIRST CONFESSION.

Compiled, with word-meanings, by a competent
Teacher.

32 pages ; paper, 5 cents ; per ioo, 2.50

APOSTOLIC CHRISHAJBTY :

No. 1. Against Heresies — IrejstjEUS,
Second Century.
8pp.; paper, per 100, 50 cents ; per 1,000, 5.00
The object of these tracts is to prove by ancient
and competent testimony that the Church of
Rome has been, is, and always will be the only
true and unchangeable Church of Christ. They
present the evidence of the Fathers of the Apos-
tolic age. The selections are taken from ante-
Nfcene Fathers, published by a Protestant
authority.

No. 2. The Sin of Schism — Clement,

Ignatius, Chrysostom.
16 pp. ; paper, per too, 70 cents ; per 1,000, 7.00

THE REAL PRESENCE.

A Lutheran Minister's View.

^8 pages ; per 100, 50 cents ; per 1,000, 5.00

WHAT ARE WE DOING FOR NON-CATHOLICS ?

4 pages; per 100, 25 cents; per 1,000, 2.5**

Digitized by

BRIEF EXPLANATIONS OF SOME CATHOLIC
CEREMONIES AND PRACTICES.

4 pages ; per 100, 25 cents ; per i,ooo, $2.50

A COMPANION TO HIGH MASS.

6 pages ; per 1,000, 5 00

ONE DECISIVE REASON AGAINST FREE MA-
SONRY.

4 pages ; per ioo, 25 cents ; per i,ooo, 2.50
THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD.

70 pages, paper, .05
A handy book for distribution in the church at fu-
nerals to attending non-Catholics.

RECOLLECTIONS OF FATHER HECKER.

By rAbbe" Dufresne.
16 pages, paper, . 05

These are interesting memoirs portraying the in-
ner life of a great man.

THE PAULISTS AND THEIR WORK.

19 pages, paper, .05
A sketch of the first American religious order, with
a statement of its special work.

FUTURE OF CATHOLICITY IN THE UNITED
STATES.

By Rev. A. P. Doyle, Paulist. .05

This is a statement of the state of religion in view
of the Missions to non-Catholics.

SPIRITUAL COMMUNION.

8 pages ; per 100, .25

DEVOTION TO THE HOLY GHOST.

Per 1,000, 2.00

WHAT BENEDICTION IS.

4 pages ; per 1,0009 2.50

THE SCHOOL QUESTION FROM A CATHOLIC
POINT OF VIEW. 06

Digitized by

Sixty-five leaflets.

4 pp. tracts, 28 ctt. per 1 00 ; 12.80 per 1 ,000. 8 pp., 60 cts,
per 1 00 ; $8 per 1 ,000. 1 2 pp., 60 ctt. per 1 00 ; $6 per 1 ,000.

RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM AND ITS
REMEDY. To refute the objection, One religion is as
good as another. 4 pp. 35 cts. per 100; $2.50 per 1,000.

THE PLEA OF SINCERITY. Truth in itself the ob-
ject of investigation. 4 pp. 25 cts. per 100 ; $2.50 per 1, coo,

THE NIGHT BEFORE THE FORLORN HOPE ;
or, Prayer a Resource in all Danger. 4 pp. 25 cts.
per 100 ; $2.50 per 1,000.

WHAT SHALL I DO TO BE SAVED ? 8 pp. $5
per 1,000.

THE PLEA OF UNCERTAINTY. Truth for all men
is one*; there can be no uncertainty. 8 pp. $5 per 1,000.

WHAT MY UNCLE SAID ABOUT THE POPE.
Who is to interpret the Bible, the fallible individual or
the infallible Church ? 8 pp. $5 per 1,000.

HOW SHALL WE FIND TRUE CHRISTIANITY ?
The Church teaching with divine authority is the rule of
faith. 8 pp. $5 per 1,000.

CATHOLIC TRADITION. 4 pp. 25 cts. per 100;
$2.50 per 1,000.

WHAT IS TO BE DONE IN SUCH * A CtiSE}
Intemperance in the family. 4 pp. 25 cts. per 10c ; $2.50
per 1,000.

THE SENATORS OF SHERBURN ; or, A Law-
yer's Rule of Faith. The Church or the Bible ? 8
pp. $5 per 1,000.

THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE
EUCHARIST. 8 pp. $5 per 1,000.

A CONVERSATION ON UNION AMONG CHRIS-
TIANS. The principle of unity is submission to lawful
constituted authority. 8 pp. $5 per 1,000.

THE GOSPEL DOOR OF MERCY. How sins are
forgiven. 8 pp. $5 per 1,000.

A VOICE IN THE NIGHT ; or, Lessons in the
Sick-Room. Sickness a messenger of God to convert the
sinner. 8 pp. $5 per 1,000.

THE GOSPEL CHURCH. (1) An authoritatively
teaching Church. (2) A sacramental Church. (3) A
sacrificing Church. 12 pp. $6 per 1,000.

WHO IS JESUS CHRIST ? The divinity of our
Lord proved from Scripture, history, and civilization . xa
pp. $6 per 1,000.

THE TRINITY. Its reasonableness. The proof of
its revelation. 12 pp. $6 per 1,000.

HEROISM IN THE SICK-ROOM. 4 pp. 25 cts.
per 100 ; $2.50 n+r 1.000.

Digitized by

IS THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS OF HUMAN
OR DIVINE INSTITUTION ? 8 pp. $5 per 1,000.

WHY DID GOD BECOME MAN ? Scotist doctrine.
8 i>p. $5 per 1,000.

WHO FOUNDED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ?
4 pp. 25 cents per 100 ; $2.50 per 1,000.

EXCLUSIVENESS OF THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH. Explanation of " out of the Church there is
no salvation." 4 pp. 25 ets. per 100 ; $2 50 per 1,000.

HOW TO KEEP LENT. What is meant by prayer
and fasting. 8 pp. $2.50 per i,ooo.

IS IT HONEST? Controversial. 4pp. 25 cts. per
100; $2.50 per 1,000.

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ? Controversial.
The Church and the Sacraments. 4 pp. 25 cts. per 100 ;
$2.50 per 1,000.

THE RELIGION I WANT. 4 pp. 25 cts. per 100 ;
$2.50 per 1,000.

HOW TO HAVE A HARPY CHRISTMAS. A good
Confession is the best remedy for the blues. 8 pp. $5
per 1,000.

HOW'S THAT ? Short explanations of Catholic doc-
trines and practices. Nos. L and II. 4 pp. each. 25 cts.
per 100 ; $2.50 per 1,000.

WHAT THINK YE OF MARY r WHOSE MO-
THER IS SHE ? 8 pp. $5 per 1,000.

CONVERTED BY AN INFIDEL. 4pp. 25 cts. per
100 ; $2.50 per 1,000.

POPERY AND THE APOSTLES ; or, The Biter
Bit. The Church of to-day is the same as the Church of
the Apostles. 4 pp. 25 cts. per 100 ; $2.50 per 1.000.

THE LOVE OF JESUS CHRIST. We love Him be-
cause He loves us. Because of His benefits. Because He
has given Himself to us. Because our future depends on
Him. 4 pp. 25 cts. per 100 ; $2.50 per 1,000.

THE POPE'S TEMPORAL POWER. What it
means. Why he must be 'independent. Objections and
answers. 4 pp. 25 cts. per 100 ; $2.50 per 1,000.

A SHORT READING FOR THE SICK. (1) Patience
in pain. (2) Temptations of the sick. (3) Submit to
God's will. (4) Hope for special help at the hour of
death. 4 pp. 25 cts. per 100; $2.50 per 1,000.

IS IT TRUE ? The Bible myths of Protestants. The
story about Latin in the Church. That our religion is all
ceremony. That it is false because of bad popes or
priests. That confession increases sin. That only ignor-
ant Catholics are sincere. 4 pp. 25 cts. per 100 ; $2.50
per 1,000.

BE SURE YOU ARE RIGHT AND THEN GO
AHEAD. Questions of Protestants about our faith and
practice answered. 4 pp. 25 cts. per 100 ; $2.50 per 1,000.

PROGRESS IN RELIGION. The teaching Church
decides our faith for us. 4 pp. 23 cts. per 100 ; $2.50 per
1,000.

HOW TO GET MARRIED. Do not marry a Pro.
testant ; marry a Catholic with Banns, Confession, Mass,
and Holy Communion. 4 pp. 25 cts. per 100; $2.50
per 1,000.

HOW TO DIE. Prepare : (1) By a good life. (2)
By receiving the last Sacraments before half dead. 4 pp.
25 cts. per 100 ; $2 50 per 1,000.

SALLY BRANCH. The old Church: a narrative of
a conversion. 4 pp. 25 cts. per 100 ; $2.50 per 1,000.

SOMETHING ABOUT INDULGENCES. How to
gain them. 4 pp. 25 ots. per 100 ; $2.50 per 1,000.

HOW TO FIND THE TRUE RELIGION. The
Church, not the Bible alone. Historical. 4 pp. 25 cts.
•er 100; $2.50 per 1,000.

SAINT WORSHIP. 44 The one mediator." 4 pp.
«S cts. per 100; $2.50 per 1,000.

SAINT WORSHIP. The invocation of saints ex-
plained. How they hear us, etc. 4 pp. 25 cts. per 100 ;
$2.50 per 1,000.

THE LAST OF THE POPE. A short history of the
persecutions of the Papacy. Fallacies of Protestants ex-
posed. 4 pp. »5«cts. per 100; $2.50 per 1,000.

BAPTISM. Its necessity. Effect. The minister. The
ceremonies, etc 4 pp. 25 cts. per 100 ; $2.50 per 1,000.

HOW TO MAKE A GOOD CONFESSION. An
excellent Mission instruction. 4 pp. 25 cts. per 100;
$2.50 per 1,000.

DEVOTION TO THE SACRED HEART OF JE-
SUS. Its history. The theology of it. 4 pp. 25 .cts.
per xco ; $2.50 per 1,000.

NO SECT IN HEAVEN. If there are no sects in
Heaven, there should be none on earth. 4 pp. 25 cts.
per 100 ; $2.50 per 1,000.

THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION. 4 pp.
25 cts. per ico; $2.50 per 1,000.

DEVOTION TO THE ANGELS, 4 pp. 25 cts.
per 100; $2.50 per 1,000.

TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE. What some Protest-
ants say about our perfect Church. 4 pp. 25 cts. per
100 : $2.50 per 1,000.

PURGATORY AND PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.

^PP- $5 per I»co°-

A PASTOR'S PLAIN TALK TO HIS PEOPLE.
Duties of the people to their parish Church. 4 pp. 25
cts. per 100 ; $2.50 per 1,000.

WHAT DO CATHOLICS BELIEVE ? Brief Ex-
position of the doctrines taught by the Church. 4 pp.
•5 cts. per 100 ; $2.50 per 1,000.

WHAT CATHOLICS DO NOT BELIEVE. 4 pp
as cts. per 100 ; $2.50 per 1,000.

SHALL OUR CHILDREN BE CHRISTIANS > On
education. 4 pp. 25 cts. per 100 ; $2.50 per 1,000

THE USE OF THE BIBLE AMONG THE LAITY.
8 pp. $5 per i,ooo.

Digitized by

Publications Temperance Truth Bureau

These pamphlets discuss erery aspect of the Tem-
perance Question, and are written by some of the best-
known publicists of the day. They are useful for distri-
bution in the Church or at Rallies.

8-page pamphlets at $3 per thousand.
16 " " " $5 " "

8-PAGE PAMPHLETS (First Series).

1. Why I am a Total Abstainer. Rev. Walter Elliott.

2. The Spirit of Father Mathew.

Archbishop Ireland.

3. Let us Save Our Country. Rev. J. M. Scan/an.

4. Join the C. T. A. Movement. /. W. Logue.

5. The Saloon is against the Church.

Rev. A. P. Doyle.

6. The Church is against the Saloon.

Rt. Rev. J. J. Keane, D.D.

7. The Supreme Court and the Saloon.

8. The Drinking Habit. a. W. Gutridge.

9. Alcohol is a Health-Destroyer.

to. The Treating Practice. Rev. J. S. Tieman.

11. A Fashion of the Times. Helen R. Grey.

12. In the Midst of the Battle. Rev. A. P. Doyle.

13. The Disease and the Remedy.

Archbishop Ireland.

14. Alter the Facts. Helen R. Grey.

15. Save Your Strength. Prof. C H. Steele.

16. What Women Can Do. Martha F. Hyde,
rj. Convention Address op '93. Rev. /. /. McCoy.
x8. A New Remedy for an Old Evil.

. _ Rev. Wm. I. Simmons.

19. A Woman's Point of View. Lily A. Toomy.

90. Important Temperance Documents.

21. The Tippling Habit. /. w. Burgess.

22. Catholics and the Drink Habit.

Rev. James M. Cleary.

23. The Ounce of Prevention.

24. Convention Address of '94. Rt. Rev. J. B. Cotter.
8-PAGE PAMPHLETS (Second Series).

14. The Warfare against Drunkenness.

15. Why Join the Temperance Society ?

16. Women's Mission in Temperance Work.
19. Why Sign the Pledge ?

ao. Our Aims and Hopes. Rt. Rev T.L.Spalding. D.D.
ai. Homily on Drunkenness.

St. Clement of Alexandria.

24. Save the Child.

25. The Duty we Owe.

26. The Four-fold Reason Why.

Rev. J. W. Cavanaugh, C.S.C.

27. Moderate Drinkivg. Rev. P. J. McManus.

28. Our Drinks and Our Drunkards. John A. Mooney.

29. The Wave of Drunkenness is not Subsiding.

Rev, M~ F. Foley.

Digitized by

30. This is My Reason. Julia Hargreave.

3* A Study of the American Temperance Question.

Rev. A. P. Doyle.

s*. Total Abstinence Warriors. An tx- Attache.

33. Personal Total Abstinence. Joseph A. V^'don.

34. The Church Law and the Saloon.

Rev. James b. Troy,

35. The Change op Ten Years in the Total Absti-

nence Work. Rev. James M. C/eary.

36-7. An Appeal to the Catholic Clergy of the
United States from the Executive Council
of the C. T. A. U. of A. (16 pages.)

38. A Call to Catholic Women. Leonora M. Lake*

39. The Total Abstinence Pledge and the Work-

INGMan. Rev. J. J. Kean.

40. Other Reasons Why. Leonora M. Lake.

41. The Higher Ideals of Manhood.

Rt. Rev. J. L. Spalding, D.D.
43. A Message to the Irish Race.

Most Rev. John Ireland, D.D.

46. Father Mathew, His Life and Labors.

John A. Foote.

47. Total Abstinence and non-Catholic Missions.

Rev. T. F. Burke,
48- Influence of Mothers in Temperance Work.

Dr. H. M. Hughes.

49. The Doctor's Statement. F. J Welsh, M.D.

50. Temperance Home and School. Mary I. Cramsie.

51. New Means and Methods. Rev. D. Hughes.
5a. The Future of the American Republic.

55. Sermon at Philadelphia Con ven noN.

Rt. Rev. Mgr. T. J. Conaty, D.D.

56. Catholic Women Must Organize.

Leonora M. Lake.

57. Words of Wise Counsel. /. Washington Logue.

16-PAGE PAMPHLETS.

1. The Duty of Catholics in Temperance Work*

Archbishop Ireland.
a. Ethics of Catholic Total Abstinence.

Rev. Thomas Conaty, D.D.

3. Mgr. Satolli and the Saloon.

Archbishop Ireland.

4. Immoral Use and Sale of Intoxicants.

Very Rev. A. F. Hewit, D.D.

5. A Perplexing Social Evil. Rev. James M. Cleary.

6. Temperance Hymns. Arranged to Popular Airs.

7. Convention Address of '95. Rev. J. M. C'*ary.

8. Twenty-five Years of Earnest Work

Most Rev. P. /. Ryan, D.D.

9. To Drink and not be Drunk. A Catholic Priest.
10. The Pledge is good, but a Total Abstinence

Society is Better. Rev. Walter Elliott.

ti. The Saloon. Most Rev. John Ireland, D.D.

1a. A Great Forward Movement. Joseph C. Gibbs.

Digitized by

PERIODICALS.

TUB CatHolic World magazine.

bditbd by thb pauubt father*.
An Illustrated Magazine of General Literature.

ISSUED EVERY MONTH.

4)3 rbr Ybam. 120 West 60th Stmt, New York.

The Catholic World Magazine is the old-estab-
lished representative organ of Catholic thought. For
thirty years it has led in the development of intellectual
life by its able, advanced, and aggressive methods.
Lately by its beautiful illustrations, its more popular tone,
its reduced price, and its bright, entertaining ** get up," it
has more than doubled its subscription list.

We give very large discounts to Agents in
every city, and ladies as well as men can make
good salaries. Write for terms.

THE YOUNG CATHOLIC

x6 Pages, Every Two Weeks.

BEAUTIFULLY ILLUSTRATED,
A Wonderful Help in the Sunday-School.
Single copy, $1 per Year. 1 20 West 60th Street, New York.
In quantities for Sunday-Schools a* 2 eentnaeopy.

A bright little magazine distributed every second Sun-
day will secure better attendance, enliven the interest in
Sunday-School work and be a valuable auxiliary in edu-
cating the children.

New Methods. New Result*. New SmeeesmeB,

THE MISSIONARY:

A Record of Christian Unity.
The organ of the non-Catholic Mission Movement

Published every 3 Months. Subscription price f 1 per Yew.

It represents the Catholic Missionary Union, a society
legally incorporated for the purpose of gathering funds to
support missionaries who are engaged in giving missions
in sections of the country where the people are almost en*
tirely non-Catholic.

Address: The Missionary, 120 West 60th Street, KewYoft*

Digitized by

4TBe Catholic World magazine

EDITED BY THE FAUUST FATHERS.

An Illustrated Magazine of General Literature.

ISSUED EVERY MONTH.

S3 peb year* *2*w*«teotfcSt.,NEW york.

The Catholic World Magazine is the old-
established representative organ of Catholic thought.
For thirty years it has led in the development of intel-
lectual life by its able, advanced, and aggressive
methods. Lately by its beautiful illustrations, its more
popular tone, its reduced price, and its bright, entertain-
ing " get up," it has more than doubled its subscription
list.

We give very large discounts to Agents in every
city, and ladies as well as men can make good salaries.
Write for terms.

$3 per year. 120 Vest 60th St, Hew York.

A Magazine for Bora and Girl*.

THE LEADER,

3* Pages. MONTHLY.

BEAUTIFULLY ILLUSTRATED.

A Wonderful Help in the Sunday-School. .

A bright little magazine distributed every month will
secure better attendance, enliven the interest in Sunday-School
work, and be a valuable auxiliary in educating the children.

ONE DOLLAR per YEAR IN ADVANCE.

Special Rates wnen ordered in quantities.

New Methods. New Results. New Successes.

THE LEADER,
120 West 60th Street, NEW YORK.

Digitized by

\

The Mass Book.

A Complete Frajer-Book of 64 pages for

100 copies for $4.50.

The Mass Book recently published
by the Columbus Press is an entirely
new departure in prayer-book publi-
cations. This book contains every-
thing that a Catholic needs for his de-
votions, and, what no other book con-
tains, a short, clear explanation of
the essential doctrines of the Church.

There is no better book to distribute

among Catholics or non-Catholics.

Send 5 cents in Postage Stamps for a copy
of THE MASS BOOK.

The Catholic Book Exchange,
ijs© West 60th St., New York.

5 cents.

1

Digitized by

Google

y Google

y Google

' Digitized t Google